Proceedings based on a Head Constable’s incompetent investigation must be quashed.

The petitioners in the two connected criminal petitions sought relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against proceedings arising from two separate Srirampura Police Station cases.

The first case concerned offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 323, 324, 341, 504 and 506 IPC; the second concerned Sections 143, 504 and 506 IPC, in both cases read with Section 149 IPC.

The petitioners contended that the investigations had been conducted, and the charge-sheets filed, by a Head Constable who was not competent to investigate under Rules 237 and 238 of the Karnataka Police Manual.

The State did not dispute that a Head Constable had conducted each investigation.

Whether the Head Constable who conducted the investigations and filed the charge-sheets was competent to do so under Rules 237 and 238 of the Karnataka Police Manual

Whether the proceedings in C.C. Nos. 90/2019 and 637/2018 should be quashed on that ground

The petitions were brought under Section 482 CrPC, which the Court exercised to consider whether the challenged criminal proceedings should continue.

The petitioners relied on Rules 237 and 238 of the Karnataka Police Manual as governing an officer’s competence to investigate.

The Court accepted the position, undisputed by the prosecution, that the Head Constable was not competent to investigate the matters and file the charge-sheets.

The Court also noted a similar order in Crl.P. No. 4677/2019, dated 17 September 2026, concerning an investigation by a Head Constable.

The Court found that the investigations in both cases had been conducted by Head Constable HC-1216, identified as CW8 in the first case and CW5 in the second; the charge-sheet in the first case was also signed by him.

Because the State did not dispute the petitioners’ contention that the Head Constable was not competent to investigate and file the charge-sheets, the Court concluded that the petitioners had made out a case for quashing the proceedings.

and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 90/2019 and C.C. No. 637/2018.