SMT.SHASHIKALA @ SASIKALA KRISHNAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WHITE FIELD POLICE STATION
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16822 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN
1 . SMT.SHASHIKALA @ SASIKALA KRISHNAPPA
W/O KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
NO.05/698, TMJ KOTE VILLAGE,
SAPPADI POST, SULAGIRI TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU-635117
2 . SRI.KRISHNAPP.G.
S/O SRI.JEDAPPA @ GEEDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
NO.05/698, TMJ KOTE VILLAGE,
SAPPADI POST, SULAGIRI TALUK,
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU-635117
3 . SRI.B.KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
H NO. 135
SHREE YELLAMMA DEVI TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
PATANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITE FILED POST,
BENGALURU-560066
4 . SRI.PURSHOTTAMA @ PURUSHOTHAM B.K.
S/O B KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
H.NO.135,
SHREE YELLAMMA DEVI TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
PATANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITE FILED POST,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
BENGALURU-560066.
5 . SMT.LAGUMAMMA, @ LAXMI,
W/O B KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
H.NO.135,
SHREE YELLAMMA, DEVI TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
PATANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITE FILED POST,
BENGALURU-560066.
6 . SMT. MEENAKSHI B K
D/O B KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
H.NO.135,
SHREE YELLAMMA, DEVI TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
PATANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITE FILED POST,
BENGALURU-560066.
7 . SRI.MUNIVEERAPPA,
S/O LATE BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
SHREE YELLAMMA, DEVI TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
PATANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITE FILED POST,
BENGALURU-560066
8 . SRI.SRIDHAR MURTHY
S/O MUNIVEERAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SHREE YELLAMMA, DEVI TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
PATANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITE FILED POST,
BENGALURU-560066
9 . SRI.B.RAMESH
S/O LATE BYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
SHREE YELLAMMA, DEVI TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
PATANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITE FILED POST,
BENGALURU-560066
10 . SMT.MUNIVENKATAMMA,
D/O LATE BYRAPPA,
W/O MUNIKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
SHREE YELLAMMA, DEVI TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
PATANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITE FILED POST,
BENGALURU-560066
11 . SMT.JAYALAKSHMI,
D/O LATE BYRAPPA,
W/O LATE NARASIMHA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
SHREE YELLAMMA, DEVI TEMPLE MAIN ROAD,
PATANDUR AGRAHARA, WHITE FILED POST,
BENGALURU-560066
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: NAGESH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WHITE FIELD POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU DISTRICT
2. SMT.V. SHAILAJA
W/O LATE MUNENDRA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RD
R/A82,RR LAYOUT, 3 CROSS,
MARAGONDANAHALLI, T.C.PALYA,
K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADISH., ADDL. SPP;
SRI. RANJITH KUMAR N., HCGP AND
SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK., AGA FOR R1;
SMT. V. SHAILAJA, PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.772/2025 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
HEREIN BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/
43, 120-A, 120-B AND 299 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE
ADDL CJM BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND
HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.10.2026, THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
i. Quash the FIR in Crime No.772/2025 against the
petitioners herein by White Field Police Station for
the offences punishable under section 43, 120A,
120B and 299 of IPC which is pending before Addl
Chief Judicial Magistrate, (ACJM) Bengaluru Rural,
Bengaluru.
ii. To pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case in the interest of justice.
2. A complaint has been filed by respondent No. 2
before the Whitefield Police Station on 22.06.2024.
No action having been taken, the complainant had
approached the Commissioner, Home Minister's
office, Principal Secretary, DG and IGP, Karnataka
State Human Rights Commission, and several
authorities including the Chief Minister, Deputy Chief
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
Minister. No action having been taken by them,
respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint under
Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 [for short ‘BNSS’]. Pursuant thereto
the learned Magistrate referred the matter for
investigation under sub-section (3) of Section 175
r/w sub-section (9) of Section 193 of the BNSS, in
pursuance of which FIR in Crime No.772/2025 was
registered by the Whitefield Police Station on
17.11.2025 for offences under Sections 43, 120A,
120B, and 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for
short ‘IPC’]. Challenging the same petitioners are
before this Court.
3. The allegation made in the private complaint by
respondent No. 2 was that the complainant had been
married to one Munendra under the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 on 31.05.2006 and they subsequently
stayed at Pattandur Agrahara. At that time, the
complainant and her husband had a fight with
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 as regards the
possession of the property. Thereafter, the house was
given to them. Subsequently the complainant and
Munendra were blessed with a daughter on
20.05.2007. It is alleged that on 27.04.2011, B.
Krishnappa-accused No.3, Sridhar Murthy-accused
No. 8, B. Ramesh-accused No. 9, Ravishankar, Vinod,
Lakshmamma and Sudha had abused her using filthy
language affecting her dignity, assaulted her,
threatened to kill her. It is alleged that on
06.12.2012, accused Nos. 1 and 2 brought the
grandfather of her husband to execute a Will, leaving
out her husband's name. On 23.02.2015, when the
complainant went to attend a hearing in C.C. No.
2987 of 2014, she alleges that accused No.3
harassed her, as regards which a case was
registered. She subsequently, filed a petition under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 18.06.2016. She
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
also filed a suit in OS No. 2232 of 2023 for partition
and declaration that the grandfather’s Will is bad in
law. Apart from that, she submitted that there are
various other disputes and complaints between her
and her husband’s family members.
4. Her husband had called her on 27.05.2024 at 04:02
p.m. and informed her that the accused had
assaulted him and planned to murder him. On
28.05.2024 at 12:27 p.m., she alleges that she
received a call stating that her husband had
collapsed due to chest pain. Another person, namely
Puttamma, had also called her about the very same
issue. Her friend Sindhu had also called her. On
22.06.2024 she received a call from the Inspector of
the Whitefield Police Station stating that her husband
had expired on 12.06.2024 and she was issued a
notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 [for short ‘CrPC’]. Pursuant thereto,
she gave a statement to the Whitefield Police. She
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
alleges that her husband has expired due to the
assault committed by her husband’s family members
and contrary to the religious practice, her husband's
body was burned rather than buried and it is in that
background that she had submitted a complaint on
22.06.2024 with the Whitefield Police Station, which
was not acted upon by the police, requiring her to
approach the higher authorities and then to file a
private complaint.
5. Sri.Nagesh.S, learned counsel for the petitioners
would submit that,
5.1. On 12.06.2024, petitioner No.1 had received a
call from Sridhar Murthy stating that Munendra
was found dead near Bharat Chicken Center,
Laxmaiah Building and it is pursuant thereto
that petitioner No.1 had lodged a complaint
against respondent No.2 and one Kadhar on
13.06.2024 stating that they are responsible for
the death of Munendra. Based on the complaint
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
of petitioner No.1, respondent No.1-police had
registered UDR No. 46/2024. The Investigating
Officer had sent the requisite material to the
toxicology department of the FSL to ascertain
the cause of death. The postmortem was
conducted on 14.06.2024 and the body was
handed over to petitioner No.1. The chemical
analysis and histopathological report of the
body parts of Munendra had been sent to FSL.
The FSL has submitted a report that the cause
of death was disease of liver with acute tubular
necrosis of the kidney and in pursuance thereof
a B-report has been filed in UDR No. 46/2024
on account of the death of Munendra being a
natural death and no injuries having been found
on the body of the deceased Munendra.
5.2. He submits that when the entire investigation
having been completed and a final report
having been filed in UDR No. 46/2024,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
respondent No. 2 has filed a complaint only to
harass the petitioners. The allegations made as
regards the phone call received by her from her
deceased husband alleging assault by the
petitioners and/or the intention to kill Munendra
is without any basis.
5.3. The requirement of Section 299 of the IPC is
not satisfied on an ex facie reading of the
complaint. The complaint has been filed with
mala fide intention and with the ulterior motive
of wreaking vengeance on the petitioners,
owing to a personal grudge in not receiving any
property. His submission is that respondent
No.2 has converted to Islam and is living with
Kadhar and it is for that reason that petitioner
No.1 suspected that respondent No. 2 and
Kadhar had caused the death of Munendra, but
now that a final report has been filed indicating
that the death of Munendra was natural, there
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
is no need for the complaint filed by respondent
No.2 to be proceeded with. The same would be
violative of petitioners’ rights under Article 21
of the Constitution and would cause grave
hardship, agony, and humiliation.
5.4. He submits that the continuation of the
complaint would be an abuse of the process of
law, requiring this Court to intercede in the
matter.
6. Respondent No. 2 Shailaja, who appears as party-in-
person, submits that,
6.1. There is a serious dispute between her
deceased husband and his family members.
Various litigations are pending as indicated
supra . The death having occurred on
12.06.2024 she was informed of the said death
only on 22.06.2024 by which time she alleges
the petitioners/accused in the complaint had
given false statements to the police resulting in
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
the proceedings being closed. Her submission is
that the jurisdictional police have not
investigated the matter properly. They have not
examined the allegations, pending
consideration in various proceedings, as
regards grabbing of the properties of the
deceased. She submits that the offence, being
heinous in nature, was required to be
investigated properly and it is for that reason
that the trial court, taking into consideration
the decision in Ramachandraiah and
Another v M.Manjula , [2025 SCC OnLine SC
893] has held that further investigation is
required to be conducted. In that regard she
relies on paragraph 11 of the above judgment
which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:
11. It has been settled in catena of decisions that
the High Court or the Supreme Court being
Constitutional Court is vested with extra-ordinary
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
power to direct CBI investigation depending upon
the facts and circumstances of the case. The
Constitutional Courts are expectantly and
reverently entrusted with the duty to serve justice
being a sovereign and premiere constitutional
institution. In “Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali” this Court
has held that the power to direct for CBI
investigation is to be exercised sparingly and in
exceptional circumstances, but, when the facts so
demand, it is extremely necessary to exercise the
said power to provide credibility and instil
confidence in order to do complete justice and for
enforcing the fundamental rights. The following
principle has been laid down by this Court in
paragraphs 33, 43, 44 & 45:
“ 33. This judgment, thus, clearly shows that
the Court of Magistrate has a clear power to
direct further investigation when a report is
filed under Section 173(2) and may also
exercise such powers with the aid of Section
156(3) of the Code. The lurking doubt, if any,
that remained in giving wider interpretation to
Section 173(8) was removed and controversy
put to an end by the judgment of this Court in
Hemant Dhasmana v. CBI [(2001) 7 SCC 536 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 1280] where the Court held that
although the said section does not, in specific
terms, mention the power of the court to order
further investigation, the power of the police to
conduct further investigation envisaged therein
can be triggered into motion at the instance of
the court. When any such order is passed by
the court, which has the jurisdiction to do so,
then such order should not even be interfered
with in exercise of a higher court's revisional
jurisdiction. Such orders would normally be of
an advantage to achieve the ends of justice. It
was clarified, without ambiguity, that the
Magistrate, in exercise of powers under Section
173(8) of the Code can direct CBI to further
investigate the case and collect further evidence
keeping in view the objections raised by the
appellant to the investigation and the new
report to be submitted by the investigating
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
officer, would be governed by sub-section (2) to
sub-section (6) of Section 173 of the Code.
There is no occasion for the Court to interpret
Section 173(8) of the Code restrictively. After
filing of the final report, the learned Magistrate
can also take cognizance on the basis of the
material placed on record by the investigating
agency and it is permissible for him to direct
further investigation. Conduct of proper and fair
investigation is the hallmark of any criminal
investigation.
43. At this stage, we may also state another
well-settled canon of the criminal jurisprudence
that the superior courts have the jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code or even Article
226 of the Constitution of India to direct
“further investigation”, “fresh” or “de novo” and
even “reinvestigation”. “Fresh”, “de novo” and
“reinvestigation” are synonymous expressions
and their result in law would be the same. The
superior courts are even vested with the power
of transferring investigation from one agency to
another, provided the ends of justice so
demand such action. Of course, it is also a
settled principle that this power has to be
exercised by the superior courts very sparingly
and with great circumspection.
44. We have deliberated at some length on the
issue that the powers of the High Court under
Section 482 of the Code do not control or limit,
directly or impliedly, the width of the power of
the Magistrate under Section 228 of the Code.
Wherever a charge-sheet has been submitted to
the court, even this Court ordinarily would not
reopen the investigation, especially by
entrusting the same to a specialised agency. It
can safely be stated and concluded that in an
appropriate case, when the Court feels that the
investigation by the police authorities is not in
the proper direction and that in order to do
complete justice and where the facts of the
case demand, it is always open to the Court to
hand over the investigation to a specialised
agency. These principles have been reiterated
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
with approval in the judgments of this Court in
Disha v. State of Gujarat [(2011) 13 SCC 337 :
(2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 628], Vineet Narain v. Union
of India [(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri)
307], Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi
[(1996) 6 SCC 500] and Rubabbuddin Sheikh v.
State of Gujarat [(2010) 2 SCC 200 : (2010) 2
SCC (Cri) 1006].
45. The power to order/direct “reinvestigation”
or “de novo” investigation falls in the domain of
higher courts, that too in exceptional cases. If
one examines the provisions of the Code, there
is no specific provision for cancellation of the
reports, except that the investigating agency
can file a closure report (where according to the
investigating agency, no offence is made out).
Even such a report is subject to acceptance by
the learned Magistrate who, in his wisdom, may
or may not accept such a report. For valid
reasons, the court may, by declining to accept
such a report, direct “further investigation”, or
even on the basis of the record of the case and
the documents annexed thereto, summon the
accused.”
6.2. By relying on Ramachandraiah decision, she
submits that the Magistrate having come to a
conclusion that there is further investigation
which is required to be conducted, a heinous
offence being alleged, the jurisdiction Police
ought to be permitted to conduct the said
investigation and this court ought not to
intercede in the matter.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
7. Sri. B. N. Jagadish, the Additional SPP would submit
that investigation had been conducted in UDR
No.46/2024. The viscera, part of liver, kidney, etc.,
having been forwarded to the FSL, the FSL had
clearly and categorically opined that the cause of
death was disease of liver with acute tubular necrosis
of kidney and on that basis, opined that the cause of
death being natural, a B-report having been filed by
the Investigating Officer, no fault could be found with
the said investigation requiring reinvestigation or
further investigation is his submission.
8. Heard Sri. Nagesh.S., learned counsel for the
petitioner. Smt. Shailaja, party in person,
Sri.B.N.Jagadish, learned Addl. SPP for the State, Sri.
Ranjith Kumar N HCGP and Sri. Shamanth Naik AGA
for respondent No.1. Perused papers.
9. The offences as alleged against the petitioners are
serious in nature. Merely because an offence is
alleged does not mean that the petitioners are guilty
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
of those offences. But what could be seen is that
there are various proceedings which are pending
between Munendra, respondent No. 2 and the family
members. In fact, even according to the petitioners,
petitioner No.1 had lodged a complaint against
respondent No.2 and one Mr. Kadhar, on 13.06.2024
stating that they were responsible for the death of
Munendra, therefore, a complaint has been filed by
respondent No.2 alleging that the petitioners had
murdered Munendra, when UDR 46/2024 was
registered, the postmortem was conducted on
14.06.2024 and the body handed over to the
petitioner No.1. Respondent No. 2 was not aware of
the same since respondent No.2 was informed of the
death only on 22.06.2024.
10. The histopathological report could be one of the
aspect which is required to be considered to
ascertain if there is any foul play. Apart therefrom,
there are various other aspects which are required to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
be looked into. As indicated supra , petitioner No. 1
herself having contended that respondent No. 2 and
Kadhar were responsible for death of Munendra, even
the petitioners were of the opinion that the death of
Munendra was not natural. That is the very same
allegation made by Respondent No.2- party in
person, alleging that the death of Munendra was not
natural, she contending that the petitioners are
responsible for the death. Thus, both the petitioners
and respondent No. 2 have contended that the death
of Munendra was not natural, though
histopathological report indicates that the cause of
death was disease of liver with acute tubular necrosis
of kidney. It is also on record that Munendra used to
drink a lot, that cannot result in B-report being filed
without other aspects and allegations made both by
the petitioners against respondent No. 2 and
respondent No. 2 against the petitioners being
investigated.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
11. The B-report which has been placed on record at
Annexure-R does not indicate any of the above
allegations being investigated. The B-report only
refers to the histopathological report and the final
opinion that the death of Munendra is due to disease
of liver with acute tubular necrosis of kidney. Neither
the allegation made by the petitioners against
respondent No.2 nor the allegation made by
respondent No.2 against the petitioners is found to
have been investigated in the final report filed on
18.09.2024. The learned Magistrate considering the
above aspect of the allegations made by respondent
No.2, not having been investigated by the
Investigating Officer and by relying on the decision in
Ramachandraiah has referred the matter for
further investigation.
12. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find
any infirmity in the said order passed by the learned
Magistrate, inasmuch as the further investigation
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
would always require on both the allegations made
by the petitioner No.1 against respondent No.2 and
Kadhar, as also the allegations made by respondent
No.2 against the petitioners. At this stage this court
is not opining as to whether the death of Munendra
was unnatural and if unnatural, whether it was a
homicide or not. What the learned Magistrate and
what this Court is considering is only the aspect of
the allegations made by the petitioner No.1 against
respondent No.2, as also the allegations made by
respondent No.2 against the petitioners not being
investigated which is ex facie evident on a reading of
the final report dated 18.09.2024.
13. In that view of the matter, no grounds are made out
for interference with the said order. However,
direction is required to be issued to the Investigating
Officer to investigate the same in a proper manner.
14. There are also allegations which are made by
respondent No. 2 against the Whitefield Police as
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
regards harassment and/or assault committed on her
by the Whitefield Police. This Court had called upon
the Whitefield Police to secure the CCTV footage in
WP No.3931/2026, when this Court was informed
that the CCTV was not working for more than a year
prior to the incident, as regards which separate
directions are being issued. In that view of the
matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the manner in which the earlier investigation was
done, the CCTV footage not being available, does not
inspire confidence in the Whitefield Police
investigating the matter properly. As such, this Court
is of the opinion that another Investigating Officer of
neighbouring police station, would have to conduct
the investigation. This aspect would have to be taken
into consideration by the Director General and
Inspector General of Police, and a suitable
Investigating Officer of neighbouring police station
would have to be appointed to further investigate the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62701
CRL.P No. 16822 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010803772025
matter and not the Police Inspector of Whitefield as
directed by the Magistrate. As such, this court passes
the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Petition is dismissed .
ii. The Director General and Inspector General of
Police is directed to appoint a Police Inspector
of the neighbouring Police Station to Whitefield
Police Station to further investigate the matter
taking into account the allegations made by the
petitioner No.1 against respondent No. 2 and
Kadhar, as also the allegations made by the
respondent No. 2 against the petitioners.
iii. The Whitefield Police Station is directed to
transfer all the files relating to the above to the
investigating officer appointed by the Director
General and Inspector General Police.
This Court has been assisted by Mr. Sourav M, Law
Clerk, in the formulation of this Judgement.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
LN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63