case-countercase

The Karnataka High Court has held that a case and a counter case shall be investigated by the same Investigating Officer, failing to do so would lead to departmental Action. The Court directed the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Deputy General of Police and the Law Minister to bring about an amendment to the Karnataka Police Manual and issuance of a circular that shall indicate that any violation by different Investigating Officers investigating a case and a counter case would become open to Departmental Action from the hands of the State. The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held, “Therefore, it has become necessary to direct the State to retrace its steps, again issue a circular or bring necessary amendments to the Karnataka Police Manual, failing which, it would continue to act contrary to law, which the State is not expected to do. A circular shall ensue depicting that in the event different Investigating Officers investigate into a case and a counter case, those Investigating Officers would become answerable to a Departmental Action against those persons, who venture into appointing two Investigating Officers to investigate a case and a counter case, as the law is lucid the circular to implement the law is pellucid. Therefore, the State shall henceforth ensure that a case and a counter case shall be investigated by the same Investigating Officer.”

Advocate Chokkareddy appeared for the Appellants whereas Additional SPP Jagadeesha B.N. and Advocate Praneeth G.N. appeared for the Respondents. A criminal petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking to quash criminal proceedings in a case arising out of alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 504, read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that two complaints were filed for the same incident. The Police have laid chargesheet in both these cases but there were material differences in the charge sheet laid against the petitioners and in the complaint against the second respondent. He submitted that both the crimes ought to have been investigated by the same investigating officers.

The Court relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (Dead) and Ors. (2003 SC) which has held that the  case and a countercase must be trial by the same court. 

The Supreme Court followed the judgment earlier rendered in the case of Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. (1990 SC). 

The High Court previously, in Abdul Majid Sab and Others vs State of Karnataka by Ripponpete Police (2010 Kar), has held the same principle. After the judgment of the Court, the Director-General of Police and Inspector-General of Police issued a circular that was in tune with the law laid down by the Courts. “Unfortunately, the circular has remained only on paper. It appears that it is issued only for the sake of its issuance and not its implementation. Ten years have passed by, this Court is coming across plethora of cases where a case and a counter case is still being investigated by two different Investigating Officers. The circular cannot be kept in cold storage, as the reasons for its issuance was to bring in investigation and prosecution in tune with law.”, the Court remarked.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Criminal Petition in part and quashed the criminal proceedings. The Court also directed to reinvestigate the matter by the same Investigating Officer. Cause Title: Sri Gajendra K.M. and Ors v. State by Police Sub-Inspector and Anr (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:135178-DB)

Bloggers’ Comment;

It has been seen that in many cases the police refused to take the counter complaint, in such as situation one should filed a complaint u/s 200 of CrPC.,1973 before the concerned magistrate informing that the police is investigating the counter case.