- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3428 CRL.P No. 1361 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 9886 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1361 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9886 OF 2022 IN CRL.P No. 1361/2023 BETWEEN: SRI. C.T.PONNAPPA S/O LATE C G THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A B. KANANKAD ESTATE BADAGA BANANGALA VILLAGE MADIKERI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 253. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVASA D C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SIDDAPURA POLICE MADIKERI REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. C. RESHMA CHENGAPPA W/O LATE C. T. CHENGAPPA, Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3428 CRL.P No. 1361 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 9886 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A POT BOX NO.73 B. KANANKAD ESTATE BADAGA BANANGALA VILLAGE MADIKERI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 571 253. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; DR. S. ARUMUGHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 SIDDAPURA POLICE IN C.C.NO.1803/2022 (CR.NO.32/2021) AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED U/S 504, 506, 307 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 25, 30 OF ARMS ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, VIRAJPET. IN CRL.P NO. 9886/2022 BETWEEN: 1. MRS. RESHMA CHENGAPPA C AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O LATE MR CHENGAPPA C T, 2. MR. DIVIN P B AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE MR. BELLIAPPA N P.G., 3. MR. VIVEK JOYAPPA K AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O MR JOYAPPA K M, 4. MR. ASHWIN MUTHANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O LATE MR. CHENGAPPA C T, 5. MR. RAJA J B AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O LATE MR. BOJA J K, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3428 CRL.P No. 1361 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 9886 of 2022 ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF B. KANANKAD ESTATE, BADAGA BANANGALA VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 253. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DR. S. ARUMUGHAM, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SIDDAPURA P.S,, REPRESENTED BY THE SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. MR. PONNAPPA C T AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE MR. C. G. THIMMAIAH, R/AT B. KANANKAD ESTATE, BADAGA BANANGALA VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 253. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SRINIVASA D C., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.341, 149, 506, 427 OF IPC IN C.C.NO.43/2022 PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AND J.M.F.C, VIRAJPET AT ANNEXURE A AND B RESPECTIVELY. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3428 CRL.P No. 1361 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 9886 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL ORDER Criminal Petition No.1361/2023 is filed by the petitioner- accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1803/2022, arising out of Crime No.32/2021 registered by the Siddapura police Station, Madikeri, Kodagu District, now pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Virajpet, for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 307 of IPC and under Section 3, 25 & 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. Criminal Petition No.9886/2022 is filed by the petitioner Nos.1 to 5-accused Nos.1, 2, 4 to 6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.43/2022, arising out of Crime No.33/2021 registered by the Siddapura police Station, Madikeri, Kodagu District, now pending on the file of the Principal II Addl. Civil Judge (JD) AND J.M.F.C., Virajpet, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 427 R/w 149 of IPC. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3428 CRL.P No. 1361 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 9886 of 2022 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The case of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.1361/2023 arising out of crime No.32/2021 is that, there was dispute between the husband of the complainant and the petitioner who said to be the brother of her husband. The petitioner said to be using the land of the respondent No.2 as pathway to go to his estate. About six months back petitioner/accused has destroyed the road with JCB. In spite of asking him to repair the road, he has not done it. In this regard a complaint also filed to the respondent No.1 police station. However, on the date of incident the respondent No.2 sent his son and others for repairing the road, at that time the petitioner said to be came, picked up quarrel and abused them in filthy language @ 12.30 P.M. and threatened to kill, then he went back to home brought his gun and fired towards them, it was miss fired, hence they have been escaped from the accused and intimated to the respondent No.1 police. Accordingly, a complaint came to be filed. The police registered the FIR and filed the charge sheet which is under challenge. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3428 CRL.P No. 1361 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 9886 of 2022 4. The case of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.9886/2022, where the Ponnappa the petitioner- in Crl.P.No.1361/2023 who is accused, as the complainant in this case. The FIR has registered in Crime No.33/2021, where he has stated that the accused persons who are digging the road by obstructing the way by using the JCB, men and material, he requested to stop them but they not stopped and said to be came for attack him. Hence, as a self defence he took the gun and fired towards the air. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint. The police have registered the FIR in Crime No.33/2021, investigating the same and filed the charge sheet, which is under challenge. 5. Here in these cases the parties and fact of the case are the same. The dispute between the petitioner/accused and his brother's wife and children in respect of path way. It is also submitted by the learned counsel, previously there was an allegation against the Ponnappa, he said to be committed murder of his own brother, who is the husband of the respondent No.2 herein. And he was said to be convicted and even High Court of Karnataka has upheld the conviction, later the Hon'ble Supreme Court acquitted him. Due to the enmity a false case has been registered against him. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3428 CRL.P No. 1361 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 9886 of 2022 6. On the other hand the counsel for the respondent and learned HCGP submits the accused destroyed the road by using the JCB for digging the road long back but he has not repaired it. The respondent No.2 and family members started to repairing the road by using the mud and preparing the pipeline. On that time accused came and abused him and threatened with dire consequences. Later he went back to the home and brought the gun and fired towards the witnesses and they have been escaped from the fire and lodged the complaint. 7. On hearing the both sides and on perusal of the records which reveals, the case and counter case registered against the both groups in crime No.33/2021 and 32/2021, the FIR registered against the petitioner- Ponnappa is first FIR registered at 4 P.M in crime No.32/2021. Whereas FIR lodged by the Ponnappa against the respondent and others is at 6.30 P.M. in crime No.33/2021. It appears the same incident took place in case and counter case registered against each other. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and catena of decision by this court. When the case and counter case registered and police have filed the charge sheet in both the cases, the same court should adjudicate the matter and to find - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:3428 CRL.P No. 1361 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 9886 of 2022 out who is the aggressor for the commission of offence. Therefore, both cases should be go for trial and Trial Court required to verify who is the aggressor person and punish them and acquit the other person. Therefore, without going for the trial the court cannot pass the order in both the cases. When both are filed complaint against each other, police also investigated and filed the charge sheet. The court required to verify and give findings, Whether the accused -Ponnappa used the gun as a self defence or he used with an intention to commit murder or not? It has to be considered only after full pledged trial. This court cannot conduct a mini trial for considering the same. Self defence is always should be taken. He should object the incident then he should take the defence, then he protect himself, he was fired towards air. Such being the case the question of quashing the FIR against him does not arises. In the counter case also the parties were alleging against each other, such being the case both FIR cannot be quashed. Accordingly, both the criminal petitions are hereby dismissed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:3428 CRL.P No. 1361 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 9886 of 2022 Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter both together by the Session Court. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE SRK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 CT:SK