- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37246 WP No. 16984 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 16984 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI ANANDA N H S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 345 YEARS, R/AT NALLA GUTTAHALLI, VILLAGE, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT- 563125 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINATHA BV., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560002 REP. BY SECRETARY NO-1 2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT, MARIMAKALAHALLI CHIKKABALLAPUAR-562101 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHINTAMANI DIVISION, CHINTAMANI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562101 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37246 WP No. 16984 of 2025 4. THE STATION HOUSE OF OFFICER CHINTAMANI TOWN POLICE STATION, CHINTAMANI REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING- 560001 5. SHIVASHANKAR W/O RAMACHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ASHWINI BADAVANE, CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA - 56125 6. SHRAVANI S W/O SHIVASHANKAR ASHWINI BADAVANE, CHINTAMA I TOWN CHICKBALLAPURA, DISTRICT - 563125 7. DEELIP S/O VENKATESHWARA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS ASHWINI BADAVANAE, CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT PIN CODE 563125 8. DHANAKUMAR S/O. VENKATARAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS ASHWINI BADAVANE, CHINTAMANI TOWN CHICKBALLAPURA, DISTRICT - 563125 9. RAVANAMMA W/O SHIVASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ASHWINI BADAVANE, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37246 WP No. 16984 of 2025 CHINTAMANI TOWN CHICKBALLAPURA, DISTRICT -563125 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT AND TO FURTHER INVESTIGATION TO DYSP CHINTAMANI IN THE CRIME 32/2025 REGISTERED BY THE CHINTAMANI TOWN POLICE FOR OFFENCES UNDER SEC THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023 (U/S - 189(2), 118(1), 191 (2), 191 (3), 115(2), 133, 352, 351(2), 190) TO FILE THE FINAL REPORT TO ADDED FOR OFFENSES SC/ST ACT 3(1)(r) AND 3(1)(s) AS PER ANNX-A TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a direction that reads as under: Direct further investigation by DYSP Chintamani in the Crime No.32/2025 registered by the Chintamani Town Police dated 25.02.2025 for offences under section the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2003 [BNS] and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37246 WP No. 16984 of 2025 to file the final report for offences SC/ST Act 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) as per Annexure-A. 2. This Court on 16.06.2025 has called upon the learned Additional Government Advocate to get instructions in the light of the submission that the investigation is not complete though the First Information Report is registered. Ms. K.P. Yashoda, the learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is also filed. Sri Srinatha B V, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene and issue directions for further investigation in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Anant Thanur Karmuse vs. State of Maharashtra1 3. The petitioner and the fifth to ninth respondents [the private respondents] are acquainted 1 AIR 2023 SC (CRI) 577 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37246 WP No. 16984 of 2025 with each other, and the first respondent is the elder of the family. The petitioner has filed the First Information Report [FIR] with the fourth respondent [the jurisdictional police] alleging that the fifth respondent called them to his place in Moolapalli on 17.12.2024 and when he visited their residence, the private respondents assaulted them and used abusive language. The petitioner has next alleged that on 24.02.2025 some of the private respondents [the male members] assaulted him intending to commit his murder, but he could protect himself. 4. The fourth respondent has registered a First Information Report in Crime No. 32/2005 for different offences punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS], but without referring to the acts made punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities], 1989 [‘the Act’]. The petitioner seeks this Court’s - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37246 WP No. 16984 of 2025 interference alleging that the FIR should have been for the offences punishable under the Act. 5. The petitioner's grievance is first examined in the light of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Rules, 1995 [for short, 'the Rules']. The Rule 5 provides for escalation if there is any refusal to record information about the commission of offence under the Act. The Rule 5[3] of the Rules reads as under: Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in-charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-rule (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who after investigation either by himself or by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall make an order in writing to the officer in-charge of the concerned police station to enter the substance of that information to be entered in the book to be maintained by the police station. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37246 WP No. 16984 of 2025 6. The petitioner thus has an alternative remedy, and even otherwise, the Apex Court in Anant Thanur Karmuse vs. State of Maharashtra [supra] referring to its earlier decision in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya [Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat2, has reiterated that it is within the powers of the concerned Magistrate, depending on the facts of each case, to decide whether there should be or should not be further investigation, and if fresh facts come to light, further investigation must be directed. The Apex Court’s exposition in the latter decision is: “42. ………….What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are 2 (2019) 17 SCC 1 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37246 WP No. 16984 of 2025 framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8)CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37246 WP No. 16984 of 2025 [Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1603]……… 7. In the light of these two provisions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has the first alternative under the Rules and the next alternative to apply with the jurisdictional Court for further investigation; if the jurisdictional Court is persuaded to direct further investigation, there shall be further investigation by the concerned as contemplated under the Rules. As such, the petition stands disposed of subject to all just exceptions. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42