“In 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”: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court on 13th March, 2023 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. This was in the case of Dr Sanjeev Kumar Hiremath V. State of Karnataka (CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2459 OF 2022) and this was presided over by a single bench of JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In this petition filed under section 407 of Cr.P.C., petitioner has prayed to transfer C.C.No.23250/2018 pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City to the Court of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Petitioner is the first informant in Crime registered at Jayanagar Police Station against one Raghavendra, in respect of an incident which took place at about 12.30 p.m. on 10.07.2017, which culminated in filing of charge-sheet against the said for offences punishable under Section 341, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC. The offences alleged being triable by the learned Magistrate, the said case numbered is pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City. It is not in dispute that with regard to the very same incident which took place on 10.07.2017 a counter complaint was lodged by the respondent herein against the petitioner and his father, which was registered in 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 chargesheet was filed before the Special Court, and the same is pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City. One of the grounds for dismissal of the petition by the learned Sessions Judge was that 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 above settled principles of law in deciding the case and counter case has not been disputed by the learned counsel for respondent. In 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.”
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY PRATIKSHYA P. BEURA