- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2913 CRL.P No. 3075 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3075 OF 2022 BETWEEN: UMESHA K S S/O SRI SHYAMARAJACHARYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESIDENT OF DONKANAGADDE KADLURU, KUDIGE, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHETHAN B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ALUR POLICE STATION, SAKALESHPURA TALUK-573134 HASSAN DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. ASHWINI D/O RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS BAGE VILLAGE, BELGUDO HOBLI, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 134. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 R2 - SD/-) Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2913 CRL.P No. 3075 of 2022 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.11.2021 PERMITTING PW 25 TO MARK EX.P.41 PASSED IN S.C.NO.276/2014 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused in SC.276/2014 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan registered for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376, 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') is seeking to quash the order dated 30.11.2021 whereunder, the Court has permitted the Investigating officer examined as PW25 to mark Ex.P41. 2. Heard Sri. Chethan B, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Asma Kouser, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1, respondent No.2 though served, remained unrepresented and perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2913 CRL.P No. 3075 of 2022 "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the order dated 30.11.2021?" My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS 4. The FIR came to be registered against the accused, based on which, the investigation was undertaken. Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet. After committal, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence, and summoned the accused. It is stated that as many as 25 witnesses are examined and the Investigating Officer is being examined as PW25. An additional document, said to be the internal communication between the Tahsildar and PW25-as Investigating officer for examining the victim was produced. An objection was raised by the accused for producing the additional document on the ground that same was not produced along with the charge sheet and the same cannot be permitted to be produced during the trial. However, the said objection was overruled by the Trial Court. The said document was marked as Ex.P41. Later, the matter was posted for - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2913 CRL.P No. 3075 of 2022 recording the statement of accused. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the order dated 30.11.2021. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Investigating Officer is required to produce all the relevant documents along with final report and if for any reason, the Investigating Officer intends to produce additional document, it is only by way of further investigation as provided under Section 173(8) of Cr.PC. 6. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. R.S.Pai and another1. On going through the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has categorically held in paragraph 7 as under; "7. From the aforesaid sub-sections, it is apparent that normally, the investigating officer is required to produce all the relevant documents at the time of submitting the charge-sheet. At the same time, as there is no specific prohibition, it cannot be held that the additional documents cannot be produced subsequently. If some mistake is committed in not producing the 1 (2002) 5 SCC 82 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2913 CRL.P No. 3075 of 2022 relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or the charge-sheet, it is always open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the court. xxxx Hence, the impugned order passed by the Special Court cannot be sustained." (emphasis supplied) 7. On facts, an application was filed before the Trial Court by the prosecution seeking permission to produce the additional documents. The said application was rejected by the Trial Court. It was challenged by CBI. The Hon'ble Apex Court noting that there is no prejudice caused to the accused, set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and allowed the appeal. Therefore, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner supports the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General, and not the petitioner. Thus, from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the position of law is very well settled as referred to above. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Trial Court. 8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2913 CRL.P No. 3075 of 2022 ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15