- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48592 CRL.RP No. 1727 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1727 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O K.R NAYAK AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, FEMALE R/O HOUSE NO. 247, AMBEDKAR NAGAR DHOBI GHAT, KABBALAMMANAPALYA KARIMINIKE BENGALURU BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 560060 …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRAJWAL SWAMY M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA KUMBALAGUDU POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU- 560001. 2. SRI. MALLESHAPPA @ MALLESH S/O LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT KABBALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE- 560060. 3. SRI. SRINIVASA @ KUNTA SEENA S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. R/AT KABBALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48592 CRL.RP No. 1727 of 2025 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE- 560060. 4. SRI. SRINIVASA S/O CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KABBALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE- 560060. 5. VISHWANNA @ VISHWA S/O MURTHY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT KABBALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-560060. 6. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMI W/O MALLESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT KABBALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-560060. 7. SMT. SHYLA W/O RAGAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO 53, KABBALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-560060. 8. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO 241, KABBALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48592 CRL.RP No. 1727 of 2025 BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE- 560060. 9. SMT. SUBAMMA W/O CHIKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT KABBALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE-560060. 10. SMT. SHANTAMMA W/O HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT KABBALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE- 560060. 11. SMT. PUTAMMA W/O GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT KABBALAMMANAPALYA VILLAGE KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP.) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16TH OCTOBER 2025 BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN SPL. CASE NO. 04/2014. AND DIRECT THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER TO CONDUCT FURTHER INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 173(8) CR.PC IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANDATES SC/ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, 1989. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48592 CRL.RP No. 1727 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 16.10.2025 passed on an application filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. by complainant, this revision petition is filed. 2. Sri Prajwal Swamy, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner had filed an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. seeking for further investigation by alleging that during course of investigation, Police had not recorded statements of certain eye-witnesses and had not included few persons as accused. 3. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner- complainant had been continuously making efforts seeking further investigation and for arraignment of additional persons as accused by submitting representations to Police Officer. It is therefore prayed for allowing revision petition, set aside impugned order and allow application filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48592 CRL.RP No. 1727 of 2025 4. Heard. 5. While considering application, Special Court observed that at instance of complainant, an application earlier filed by prosecution under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was rejected by order dated 24.01.2023 and even challenge against said order in Crl.RP.No.272/2024 came to be dismissed on 22.07.2025. 6. It also observed that petitioner-complainant had not disclosed names of additional eye-witnesses either in her complaints dated 26.03.2013 or 27.03.2013 or in her further statement recorded on 01.04.2013 and petitioner had not disclosed about loss of jewelry on date of incident, until filing of application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. i.e. in 2021 and there was no proper explanation for delay of 8 years. 7. It also took note of fact that application was filed after completion of recording of evidence on behalf of prosecution and statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48592 CRL.RP No. 1727 of 2025 8. Besides above, Registry has raised an office objection against maintainability of revision petition as it is against an order on an interlocutor application. Even if said office objection is overlooked, reasons stated by trial Court for rejection appear just and proper based on appreciation of facts and circumstances and material on record and are not established to be either suffering from perversity or to be contrary to any statutory provision. 9. For aforesaid reasons, there are no good grounds to entertain revision petition both on ground of maintainability as well as failure to establish that order suffers from perversity. 10. Hence, Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE HA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23