- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2807 CRL.P No. 201429 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201429 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: ABDUL HAKHEEM S/O KHASIMSAB CHOUDRI, AGE:28 YEARS, OCC:BUSINESS, R/O. GOGI (K) VILLAGE, TQ.SHAHAPUR, DIST.YADGIR-585201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH POLICE, GOGI POLICE STATION, SHAHAPUR RURAL CIRCLE, DIST.YADGIRI-585201, R/BY ADDL.SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585107. 2. MOHD.HANEEF S/O IMAMSAB CHOUDARY, AGE:21 YEARS, OCC:CHICKEN VENDOR, R/O. GOGI (K), TQ.SHAHAPUR, DIST.YADIGIR-585201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2807 CRL.P No. 201429 of 2023 09.08.2023 PASSED BY DISTRICT AND SESSINONS JUDGE, YADGIRI IN S.C.NO.25/2022 PENDING ON HIS FILE, ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PROSECUTION FOR BRAIN MAPPING AND POLYGRAPH TEST ON ACCUSED NO.1 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION DATED 20.07.2022 FILED BY THE PROSECUTION FOR BRAIN MAPPING AND POLYGRAPH TEST OF ACCUSED NO.1. B) PASS ANY OTHER SUITABLE ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEM FIT BY THIS HON’BLE COURT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri. Sanjay Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent No.1. 2. The de-facto complainant is the petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned trial Judge dated 09.08.2023 in S.C.No.25/2022. 3. The facts in the nutshell for disposal of the petition are as under: An application came to be filed by the Investigating Officer seeking for according permission to conduct Brain Mapping and Polygraph Test to accused No.1 in order to find - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2807 CRL.P No. 201429 of 2023 out the names of other accused persons who are also involved in the alleged commission of the crime. The facts would also reveal that, accused No.1 confessed that, he alone is responsible for the homicidal death of Sri. Khasimsab, but involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3 were also suspected in the homicidal death. The prosecution had also alleged the commission of offence punishable under Section 109 read with Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, the application seeking permission to conduct Brain Mapping and Polygraph Test to the accused No.1 was totally uncalled for on the part of the investigating agency as Section 34 of IPC would take care of the interest of the prosecution in the event the prosecution is successful in establishing the case, that there was a common intention to commit the crime by all the three accused persons. 4. It was further found on record that, the application was not disposed of in time by the learned trial Judge which has made de-facto complainant to approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No.200431/2022. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2807 CRL.P No. 201429 of 2023 5. This Court while allowing the said writ petition, directed the learned trial Judge to consider the application filed by the Investigating Officer within a period of three months. Despite such an order, the learned trial Judge did not pass any orders on the application filed by the Investigating Officer which has resulted in de-facto complainant moving this Court for initiating the contempt proceedings against the learned trial Judge. When the said proceedings were pending, the learned trial Judge considered the application and passed an order on 09.08.2023 rejecting the request of the Investigating Officer. As such, the contempt proceeding was dropped. 6. The State is not aggrieved by the order of rejection of the application filed by the Investigating Officer seeking Brain Mapping and Polygraph Test, insofar as accused No.1 is concerned. 7. On the contrary, it is de-facto complainant who has approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with the following prayer: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2807 CRL.P No. 201429 of 2023 (a) Quash the impugned order dated 09.08.2023 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri in S.C.No.25/2022 pending on his file, on application filed by the prosecution for brain mapping and polygraph test on accused No.1 and consequently allow the application dated 20.07.2022 filed by the prosecution for brain mapping and polygraph test of accused No.1. (b) Pass any other suitable order or direction as deem fit by this Court under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 8. Sri. Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contended that, in order to unearth the truth, the Brain Mapping and Polygraph Test is utmost necessary. Therefore, the State ought to have challenged the order passed by the trial Judge and when they failed to do so, left with no alternative the de-facto complainant has approached this Court and sought for allowing the petition. 9. Per contra, learned HCGP supports the order passed by the trial Judge by especially in view of the fact that, the Hon’ble Apex Court has clearly ruled that, conducting the Brain Mapping and Polygraph Test without - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2807 CRL.P No. 201429 of 2023 the consent of the accused would affect the right of an individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and thus, the order of rejection is not challenged by the State and therefore, requested the Court to pass suitable orders. 10. 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the materials on record, the order passed by the learned trial Judge on 09.08.2023 is in accordance with law. Further, reason assigned by the trial Judge while rejecting the application of prosecution is in consonance with the principles of law enunciated by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Selvi and others Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 263 which has also been extracted in the impugned order. Paragraph Nos.262 to 266 are extracted and relied upon by the trial Judge in the impugned order itself. 12. Taking note of the authoritative principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Selvi - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2807 CRL.P No. 201429 of 2023 and others as referred supra, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or capriciousness in the order of the learned trial Judge in rejecting the application of the Investigating Officer. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER The petition is meritless and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65 CT:PK