- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4414 CRL.RP No. 100248 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100248 OF 2023 (397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAHENDRA PAWADI SHETTI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O. KANKANAWADI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAKASH HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAIBAG POLICE STATION, R/BY. S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS OF COURT BELOW AND ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.10.2022 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBAG IN C.C.NO. 412/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 354B, 504, 506 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.11 14:27:31 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4414 CRL.RP No. 100248 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.Prakash Hosamane, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State. 2. Revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.412/2018 challenging the validity of the order passed by the trial magistrate rejecting the application filed under section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) seeking for discharge of the accused from the charges leveled against him in the charge sheet. 3. Sri.Prakash Hosamane, contended that in respect of the incident that occurred on 13.04.2017, a counter complaint is filed and charge sheet is also filed in the said case. 4. It is his case that complaint by filed by the present petitioner is earlier in timeline and as a retaliation - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4414 CRL.RP No. 100248 of 2023 a false complaint came to be lodged by the complainant in the present case, which has not been properly investigated and Police have filed a false charge sheet against the accused. Therefore, application seeking discharge ought to have been allowed by the learned trial judge. 5. Per contra, Sri.Praveena Devareddiyavar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent- State, contended in respect of both the complaints, investigation has been conducted and charge sheets came to be filed. 6. Therefore, both the cases are to be tried by the one and the same judge as per the judgment of the full Bench judgment of this court, in the case of State of Karnataka, By Circle Inspector of Police Vs. Hosakeri Ningappa and Another (Hosakeri Ningappa)1 7. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. Admittedly, there are two complaints in respect of the 1 LIR (2012) Kar 509 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4414 CRL.RP No. 100248 of 2023 incident that occurred on 13.04.2017, one filed by the present petitioner and another filed by the complainant in the other case. Both the cases have been investigated and charge sheets came to be filed. 8. Under such circumstances, the principles of law enunciated in Hosakeri Ningappa (supra) would come into operation and one and the same judge should try both the cases one after other independently and pass judgment one after the other on the same day, in terms of the guidelines issued in the full Bench judgment. 9. With that observation, the discharge application rejected by the revision petitioner does not require any interference from this Court. 10. Accordingly, following order is passed: ORDER i. Criminal revision petition stands dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4414 CRL.RP No. 100248 of 2023 ii. But it is made clear that the trial judge shall strictly adhere to the guidelines issued in Hosakeri Ningappa (supra). Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17