20 March 2023 6:59 AM GMT
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a case and a counter case have to be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of offences involved, to avoid conflicting judgments over the same incident. A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the petition filed by one Dr Sanjeev Kumar Hiremath and transferred the case filed by him pending before the Magistrate...
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a case and a counter case have to be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of offences involved, to avoid conflicting judgments over the same incident.
A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the petition filed by one Dr Sanjeev Kumar Hiremath and transferred the case filed by him pending before the Magistrate court in Bengaluru under sections 341, 324, 504 and 506 to the Special Session court where the offence registered by the accused against Hiremath under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 is also pending.
“The learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge shall try both the cases, in accordance with law,” the bench said.
Hiremath had lodged a complaint against one Raghavendra, in respect of an incident which took place on 10.07.2017, which culminated in filing of charge-sheet against the accused and the matter is pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
In respect of the very same incident, a counter complaint was lodged by Raghavendra against the petitioner and his father, at the Jayanagar Police Station. On completion of investigation, the police have filed chargesheet against the petitioner and his father for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (SC/ST Act, for short). Since the offences under the SC/ST Act are triable by the Special Court, the charge sheet was filed before the Special Court, and the same is pending.
The petitioner approached the Sessions Court under Section 408 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). However, the said petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 19.11.2021. It was said: “Section 408(1) of Cr.P.C., only gives power to the Sessions Judge to transfer a case pending in one criminal Court to another criminal Court in his Sessions Division, but it does not give power to Sessions Court to call for a case to that Court from the Magistrate Court without formal committal.”
The bench noted that it is not in dispute that both the cases, one which is pending before the Magistrate and one which is pending before the Special Court arises out of a case and counter case.
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mishrilal and others, wherein the court has referred to a decision in Nathi Lal vs. State of U.P. wherein it has been held that “the fair procedure to adopt in a matter like the present where there are cross-cases, is to direct that the same learned judge must try both the cross-cases one after the other."
“The above settled principles of law in deciding the case and counter case has not been disputed by the learned counsel for respondent. In a plethora of judgments it is held that a case and a counter case have to be tried together by the same court irrespective of the nature of offences involved. The rationale behind this is to avoid conflicting judgments over the same incident, as held in the above noted decision. That being so, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this petition requires to be allowed,” said the court.
Case Title: Dr Sanjeev Kumar Hiremath And State of Karnataka Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2459 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
Date of Order: 13-03-2023
Appearance: Advocate Raghavendra K for petitioner.
HCGP K.Nageshwarappa for R1.
Advocate Shrikanth Badaradinni for R2.
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment