- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50937 CRL.P No. 13581 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13581 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUNIRATHNA, S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA NAIDU, AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.141, 11TH A CROSS, VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 059 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRINIVAS RAO S S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INVESTIGATION BY THE SIT VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT NO.1 CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY SPL.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. SRI CHELUVARAJU AGE ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE SRI KARIAPPA R/AT NO.F -114, BEL LAYOUT Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50937 CRL.P No. 13581 of 2025 1ST STAGE, BHARATH NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 091 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.S. PRADEEP, SPL.P.P., FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 24.09.2025) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2025 PASSED IN CRL.R.P. NO.142/2025 BY THE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR CASES AGAINST MPs AND MLAs BENGALURU (CCH-82) AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2025 PASSED IN CRIME NO.121/2024 BY THE XLII ADDITIONAL CJM AND SPECIAL COURT FOR CASES AGAINST MPs AND MLAs BENGALURU. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioner- accused No.1 in Crime No.121/2024 assailing the correctness of the order dated 17.09.2025 passed in Crl.R.P.No.142/2025 by the Court of LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-82) and has also sought for setting aside of the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in Crime No.121/2024 by the Court of XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Special Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50937 CRL.P No. 13581 of 2025 for trial of cases against sitting/former MPs/MLAs, in the State of Karnataka. 2. It is to be noticed that the said Criminal Revision Petition was filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) by the present petitioner challenging the order dated 24.01.2025 passed in Crime No.121/2024 by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, upon passing an order on requisition of the Investigating Officer had allowed the requisition and permitted the Investigating Officer to collect the voice sample of accused No.1. Further direction was passed that the accused No.1 ought to co-operate with the Investigating Officer for collection of voice sample. The said order was challenged before the Revisional Court. The requisition of the Investigating Officer at the first instance was seeking permission to collect the voice sample of the accused and voice sample was sought for as part of the investigation procedure, as it was asserted that there was audio recording of conversation regarding demand of bribe - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50937 CRL.P No. 13581 of 2025 by the accused. It was asserted that the audio recording is required to be tested regarding its authenticity and in specific, as to whether the audio recording would tally with the voice of the complainant and the accused and accordingly, the Investigating Officer had made the requisition. 3. The objection raised by the learned Magistrate was that the voice sample was already collected in Crime No.121/2024 and the same could be made use of for investigation in the present case also. The learned Magistrate had made certain observations while considering the request of the Investigating Officer including that FSL report in the other connected case may not be available for the present case. 4. It is further observed by the learned Magistrate that the Investigating Officers in the two cases are different and in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate to send the matter once again for scientific - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50937 CRL.P No. 13581 of 2025 examination and such procedure would not cause any harm or prejudice. The said order was taken up by way of a revision in Crl.R.P. No.142/2025. The Revisional Court after a detailed finding has rejected the Revision Petition and affirmed the order of requisition of the Investigating Officer. 5. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the official report having been received as regards the voice sample in the other case may be made use of in the present case and there was no necessity to subject the petitioner to undergo the procedure of giving a voice sample afresh. The Revisional Court, after a detailed consideration, has rejected the Crl.R.P.No.142/2025 upholding the order of learned Magistrate dated 24.01.2025. The Revisional Court has observed specifically that the portion of statement which is relevant to the case pertaining to the complainant in the other complaint would be entirely different with respect to the transcript involved - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50937 CRL.P No. 13581 of 2025 in the present case and accordingly, has rejected the request that the same FSL report be made use of in the present case also. The Revisional Court has also observed that the accused cannot dictate the terms and the manner in which the investigation is to be conducted. 6. It must be noticed that though it is the case made out that in the same conversation, there were two offences committed which have been recorded and one relates to abuse in the name of caste with respect to which a separate complaint has been registered and the other portion of the conversation relates to demand of bribe with respect to which the present complaint has been registered. 7. The law laid down in the case of Sudhir Chaudhary and Others v. State [NCT of Delhi] reported in (2016) 8 SCC 397 (Sudhir Chaudhary) that the manner in which the comparison of voice text is to be resorted to would involve the accused having to utter - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50937 CRL.P No. 13581 of 2025 certain words or portions of the transcript which would be used as a voice sample. If that were to be so, the part of conversation relating to abuse in the name of caste would be a separate part of conversation, while the conversation in which a demand for bribe has been made would be a distinct part of the conversation. In terms of Sudhir Chaudhary's case, the sample to be collected would involve making the accused read out certain words or sentences of the transcript which is sought to be relied on by the Prosecution. If that were to be so, the transcript of conversation relating to bribe would be distinct from the conversation relating to abuse in the name of caste. This itself would justify that the voice sample separately is to be sent taking note of the portion of conversation that is sought to be relied on, which requires to be tested. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds that the approach of Revisional Court does not require interference. Further, it is to be noticed that the Revisional Court has rightly observed that the manner of conducting investigation - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50937 CRL.P No. 13581 of 2025 would be one to be left in the discretion of Investigating Agencies, and cannot be dictated by the accused. 9. Taking note of the technical nature of scientific examination, the manner of conducting of such scientific examination with comparing of the voice sample, is a matter best left to the Investigating Agency. Having found that the collection of voice sample is indeed legally permissible, it would be appropriate to leave the aspect of collection of voice sample and subjecting it to scientific investigation for comparison with the audio recording available with the Prosecution in the manner as suggested by the Investigating Officer. 10. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Revisional Court, while reiterating that the manner in which the procedure to be followed is an aspect left to the learned Magistrate as per the procedure and settled legal position. Needless to state that the observations made in Sudhir Chaudhary's case - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50937 CRL.P No. 13581 of 2025 may be taken note of, as regards the manner of collection of voice sample. Accordingly petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR