Karnataka High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Case and counter-cases must be investigated by the same officer and tried by the same court.

MRS NEETA RAJENDRAN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 25, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Case and counter-cases must be investigated by the same officer and tried by the same court.. MRS NEETA RAJENDRAN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners were accused in Crime No. 86/2022, registered by Indiranagar Police Station for offences under Sections 506 read with 34, 504, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), arising from an incident on 24 April 2022.

Source reference: p. 3

A counter-case, Crime No. 85/2022, was also registered in connection with the same incident against respondent No. 6 and her family.

Source reference: p. 3

The petitioners sought to quash Crime No. 86/2022 and to have investigation of Crime No. 85/2022 transferred to higher authorities for a fair investigation.

Source reference: pp. 3–4
02

Issues

Whether the proceedings in Crime No. 86/2022 should be quashed as an abuse of process, given that a counter-case arose from the same incident

Source reference: pp. 3–4

Whether investigation of Crime No. 85/2022 should be transferred to higher authorities for fair investigation

Source reference: p. 4
03

Law Applied

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and other relief.

Source reference: p. 2

For cases and counter-cases arising from the same incident, the Full Bench decision in State of Karnataka, by Circle Inspector of Police v. Hoskeri Ningappa, ILR 2012 KAR 509, requires investigation by the same investigating officer, prosecution by different Public Prosecutors, and trial before the same court.

Source reference: pp. 4–6

The evidence and arguments in each case are to be dealt with in sequence, with judgments reserved and then pronounced by the same judge simultaneously, one after the other.

Source reference: pp. 4–6
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that both crimes arose from the same incident and held that the investigation agency was required to follow the procedure laid down in Hoskeri Ningappa.

Source reference: pp. 4, 6

It directed that appropriate reports be filed if investigation in both cases had been completed, and left the parties at liberty to seek appropriate directions from the jurisdictional Magistrate to ensure compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Source reference: p. 6

The Court did not separately determine the merits of the quashing or transfer requests.

Source reference: no citation
05

Holding

The Court dismissed the writ petition.

It directed the investigation agency to adhere to the Hoskeri Ningappa guidelines in the case and counter-case, and permitted the parties to seek necessary directions from the jurisdictional Magistrate.

Source reference: p. 6
06

Acts & Sections Cited

7 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

MRS NEETA RAJENDRANvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · September 25, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment