- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38804 WP No. 26108 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28005 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28015 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 26108 OF 2025 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 28005 OF 2025 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 28015 OF 2025 (GM-RES) IN WP No. 26108/2025 BETWEEN: MR. PETER CADDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, SON OF MR. OSWALD CADDY, RESIDING AT NO.4, 1ST FLOOR, ST. PATRICKS SHOPPING ARCADE, BRIGADE ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CID ECONOMIC OFFENSES DIVISION, NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38804 WP No. 26108 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28005 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28015 of 2025 INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. MR. ANIL KUMAR G ECONOMIC OFFENSES DIVISION, CID NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP ALONG WITH SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT NO.3 AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND QUASH ALL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY HIM IN RESPECT TO FIR NO.0265/2023 NOTICE LETTER DT 26-5-25 NO- 06/CRM/EOD/CID/2023 ANNX-E. IN WP NO. 28005/2025 BETWEEN: SRI. HARIMOHAN VENUGOPAL NAIDU S/O VENKATASWAMY VENUGOPAL NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.14, CHARLS COMPBELL ROAD, COX TOWN, BENGALURU - 560005. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SREEVATSA S., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38804 WP No. 26108 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28005 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28015 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CID ECONOMIC OFFENSES DIVISION NO.1 CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. MR. ANIL KUMAR G ECONOMIC OFFENSES DIVISION, CID NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP ALONG WITH SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPOINTMENT OF R3 AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND QUASH ALL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY HIM IN RESPECT TO NOTICE LETTER DATED 25.08.2025 BEARING NO.06/CRM/EOD/CID/2023 IN CRIME NO.0265/2023 (ANNEUXRE-E) ON FILE OF 3RD ACMM COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY. IN WP NO. 28015/2025 BETWEEN: SMT. ASHWINI. B. M. D/O SRI. MANJUANTH B.R, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38804 WP No. 26108 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28005 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28015 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.7, NEAR ATTIMARAMMA TEMPLE, DOMLUR, BENGALURU-560 071. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SREEVATSA S., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CID ECONOMIC OFFENSES DIVISION, NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. MR.ANIL KUMAR G ECONOMIC OFFENSES DIVISION, CID NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP ALONG WITH SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1 & 2; SRI. P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE APPOINTMENT OF R3 AS THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER AND QUASH ALL INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY HIM IN RESPECT TO NOTICE LETTER DTD 25.08.2025, BEARING NO.06/CRM/EOD/CID/2023 IN CRIME NO.0265/2023 (ANNX-E) ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD ACMM, COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38804 WP No. 26108 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28005 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28015 of 2025 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FRESH MATTERS LIST, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In all these three petitions, the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1, 4 and 6 respectively in Crime No.0265/2023, have called in question the appointment of respondent No.3 as the Investigating Officer. Consequentially, they seek quashing of the further investigation carried out by the newly appointed Investigating Officer pursuant to Notice Letters bearing No.06/CRM/EOD/CID/2023 dated 26.05.2025 and 25.08.2025, which are produced at Annexure–E in the respective petitions. 2. Since the relief sought for in all these three petitions is substantially identical and the issue raised is common, all these petitions are taken up together for consideration and are disposed of by this common order. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38804 WP No. 26108 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28005 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28015 of 2025 3. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that the investigation had already reached an advanced stage when the earlier Investigating Officer was in charge. According to the petitioners, all the accused persons had co-operated with the investigation, had appeared before the Investigating Officer on multiple occasions, and had also produced all the relevant documents sought for. Therefore, they contend that under the guise of change of Investigating Officer, the Investigating Agency is attempting to reopen the investigation afresh, virtually amounting to a de-novo investigation. It is their case that such an action is not only prejudicial to the rights of the accused but also contrary to the settled legal principles governing investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Per-contra, the learned Special Counsel and the learned Additional SPP appearing for the Investigating Agency would vehemently oppose the petitions. They submit that the accused have no locus standi to question - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38804 WP No. 26108 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28005 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28015 of 2025 either the course of investigation or the appointment of a new Investigating Officer. Placing reliance on Section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, they contend that the superior police officers are vested with supervisory powers to direct and regulate investigation, including the authority to appoint or replace an Investigating Officer. It is argued that such administrative decisions fall within the exclusive domain of the Investigating Agency and cannot be interfered with in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. In support of their submissions, reliance is placed on a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, namely: Shashikant v. CBI reported in (2007) 1 SCC 630; E. Sivakumar v. Union of India and Others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 365; Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja reported in (2006) 6 SCC 195; and Tara Chand Sharma and Another v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1141/2018. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38804 WP No. 26108 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28005 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28015 of 2025 6. Having heard the rival contentions and on perusal of the record, this Court has adverted to the Notices issued under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. The specific apprehension expressed by the petitioners is that by reason of change of Investigating Officer, the entire process of investigation will be reopened, thereby subjecting them to unnecessary harassment. However, this apprehension, in the considered opinion of this Court, appears to be misplaced. A careful examination of the notices issued under Section 91 reveals that the requisitions made therein are specific in nature and confined to securing certain documents. The tenor and contents of these notices do not in any manner suggest that the investigation is being recommenced or that a de- novo investigation is contemplated. 7. The learned Additional SPP as well as the counsel for the first informant are justified in contending that the right to investigate a cognizable offence is vested with the Investigating Agency, and the discretion as to the manner - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38804 WP No. 26108 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28005 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28015 of 2025 in which such investigation is to be conducted, including change of Investigating Officer, falls entirely within their statutory domain. The judicial precedents relied upon by the respondents’ counsel unequivocally lay down the principle that the accused have no locus to challenge the appointment of an Investigating Officer or the mode and manner of investigation, so long as such investigation is carried out in accordance with law. This Court finds considerable force in the said submission. 8. On a broader perspective, this Court is persuaded to accept the legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments cited above, wherein it has been consistently held that the accused have only a limited role during the stage of investigation. The right of an accused to participate in or to question the procedural aspects of investigation is circumscribed. Unless the investigation itself is shown to be vitiated by mala fides, bias, or lack of jurisdiction, judicial review at the behest of an accused is not warranted. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38804 WP No. 26108 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28005 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28015 of 2025 9. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the notices issued under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. are valid and do not warrant interference. The apprehension of the petitioners that a de-novo investigation is being undertaken is unfounded. The newly appointed Investigating Officer is well within his statutory rights to carry forward the investigation from the stage at which it presently stands and to bring the same to its logical conclusion. 10. At the same time, it is necessary to observe that while exercising his powers, the Investigating Officer shall ensure that the petitioners are not subjected to unnecessary harassment under the guise of investigation. The petitioners, in turn, are bound to extend their fullest co-operation to the Investigating Officer so as to enable expeditious completion of the process. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.28015/2025 is presently pregnant and is likely to deliver a child. The Investigating Officer shall, therefore, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38804 WP No. 26108 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28005 of 2025 C/W WP No. 28015 of 2025 keep this sensitive circumstance in mind and extend due consideration while summoning her for investigation. With these above observations and directions, all the three petitions stand dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8