- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32674 CRL.P No. 11366 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11366 OF 2025 BETWEEN: KANTHI H. BHAT W/O HARIKRISHNA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, "ANUGRAHA", NO.58, KHAJANE LAYOUT, KOTEGANGUR, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N.MAHABALESHWARA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA, BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AND POLICE INSPECTOR, PIN: 577 201. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. 2. MANJUNATHA S/O NEEKANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR GRAMA PANCHYATHA, KOTE GANGOOR VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA PIN - 577 204. 3. SMT. SHOBAH W/O MANJUNATHA, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32674 CRL.P No. 11366 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR GRAMA PANCHYATHA, KOTE GANGOOR VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 204. 4. KUMAR S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAJAPAYE BADAVANE, ASHRAYA COLONY, VIRUPINAKOPPA VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT, PIN: 577 204. 5. SMT. DRAKSHAYANI W/O KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR GRAMA PANCHAYATHA, KOTE GANGOOR VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA PIN: 577 204. 6. PRAKASH S/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR MILK DIARY, KOTE GANGOOR VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA PIN: 577 204. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09-07-2025 IN C.C. NO.1036/2020 ON THE FILE OF JMFC-III, SHIVAMOGGA AND CONSEQUENTLY THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO ORDER FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.275/2020 REGISTERED BY THE RURAL POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32674 CRL.P No. 11366 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is by the complainant assailing the order passed by the learned Judge on an application filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioner has filed an application contending that, despite specific intimation to the Investigating Officer regarding the availability of a recording of the incident in the mobile phone of one Smt. Indira, as well as in the CCTV camera installed in front of the house, the said material evidence was not secured. It is further urged that the Investigating Officer has also failed to collect documents pertaining to the medical treatment allegedly undertaken by the complainant at Dr. Ganesh Prasad’s clinic. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32674 CRL.P No. 11366 of 2025 3. Upon hearing both the complainant and the accused, the learned Magistrate rejected the application, observing that CW.1/complainant could independently secure the recording of the incident from her own mobile phone, and such recourse is available under Section 242(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On this reasoning, the learned Magistrate held that since alternative modes are available to adduce the required evidence, the case does not warrant further investigation. Accordingly, the application came to be rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1. 5. On perusal of the records, the learned High Court Government Pleader has been able to demonstrate that the Investigating Officer has, in fact, collected the wound certificates and the same form part of the charge sheet material. It is further submitted that the learned Magistrate, while rejecting the application, has specifically - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32674 CRL.P No. 11366 of 2025 reserved liberty to the petitioner to invoke Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the event the complainant intends to place reliance on the video recording of the incident. The learned Magistrate has also taken care to ensure that the complainant is afforded a fair opportunity during trial by permitting an Advocate to prosecute the matter jointly along with the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. In light of the observations and safeguards incorporated by the learned Magistrate, this Court is of the considered view that the grievance of the petitioner is duly addressed, inasmuch as the petitioner retains the remedy of adducing any additional material, including the alleged video recording, by resorting to Section 242 of the Code. Since such recourse is available, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the order impugned, particularly when the learned Magistrate has balanced the rights of both parties and ensured that the trial would proceed fairly. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32674 CRL.P No. 11366 of 2025 7. Accordingly, this Court finds that the order under challenge does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy under Section 242 of Cr.P.C., the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16