- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38199 CRL.P No. 13088 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13088 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAJI @ SHIVAJI RAO. N S/O NAGOJI RAO. N, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT KELAGINA KEREHALLI, GOVATOOR, RIPPONPET, HOSANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA, PIN - 577 426. 2. DHANANJAYA S/O PANDARI RAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 3. RAVI @ RAVINDRA S/O PANDARI RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT CHANDALADIMBA, BALUR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 426. 4. NARAYANA @ NARAYANA RAO S/O RAMOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38199 CRL.P No. 13088 of 2025 5. ROPA @ ROOPA W/O KUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT KELAGINA KEREHALLI, GOVATOOR, RIPPONPET, HOSANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA, PIN - 577 426. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RIPPONPET POLICE STATION, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 01. 2. SMT. GEETHA W/O LINGOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT KEREHALLI VILLAGE, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. PIN - 577 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.76/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn.) AND CJM COURT HOSANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT OF RESPONDENT RIPPONPET STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 329(3), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352, 190 OF BNS ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38199 CRL.P No. 13088 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in Crime No.76/2025 registered by Ripponpet Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which are presently pending on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hosanagara, Shivamogga District. 2. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioners is that the dispute in question is essentially civil in nature, as the petitioners and respondent No.2 are members of a joint family and civil suits are already pending adjudication between them. It was submitted that in such circumstances, continuation of criminal prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of law. However, during the course of arguments, it was brought to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38199 CRL.P No. 13088 of 2025 notice of this Court that the present case arises out of a case and counter case scenario. 3. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint alleging acts of assault against the petitioners, while, on the other hand, the petitioners themselves have also lodged a complaint alleging that it was respondent No.2 who had assaulted them. 4. This Court cannot lose sight of the settled legal position laid down by the Full Bench of this Court while dealing with case and counter case situations. The Full Bench has categorically held that when two versions of the same incident are presented by rival parties, both cases must be investigated and tried together so as to avoid the possibility of conflicting findings. The guiding principle is that both matters must be clubbed and placed before the same Court, which will then appreciate the evidence in its entirety to ascertain the true version of events. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38199 CRL.P No. 13088 of 2025 5. In the present case, therefore, since both the petitioners and respondent No.2 admit that an incident did take place, though their versions differ, it is evident that the occurrence of the incident is not in dispute. The real question which requires determination is: who was the aggressor and who was the victim? It may also be that both sides acted as aggressors. These factual aspects can only be unearthed through a proper and fair investigation. 6. It is, therefore, the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct a thorough investigation into both the case and the counter case, collect evidence and place before the Court a final report indicating the role of each party. It is for the Investigating Officer, on completion of investigation, to lay a charge sheet identifying whether one party was the aggressor and the other the victim or whether both parties were equally culpable. Such findings can only be reached after an objective appraisal of the materials gathered during investigation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38199 CRL.P No. 13088 of 2025 7. In these circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the prayer of the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings at this preliminary stage. The investigation is still at a nascent stage, and interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not be warranted. Needless to state, this Court has refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival claims, as doing so would prejudice the ongoing investigation. 8. However, it is made clear that dismissal of the present petition shall not come in the way of the petitioners availing their remedies in accordance with law. In the event a charge sheet is filed against them, it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36