- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2465 CRL.P No. 15257 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15257 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI HANUMANTHEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT MOODLENAHALLI VILLAGE HULIKUNTE HOBLI, SIRA TALUK TUMKUKR DISTRICT – 572 132. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH M. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PATTANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI HANUMANTHEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMMANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT MOODLENAHALLI VILLAGE HULIKUNTE HOBLI SIRA TALUK – 572 132. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2465 CRL.P No. 15257 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C., (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL.CASE NO.754/2023 (CR.NO.84/2022) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT TUMAKURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Mahesh M.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Jagadeesha B.N., learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Spl.Case No.754/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, which is for murder and destruction of evidence. 3. The petitioner is said to be the father of the deceased. The petitioner was initially the complainant. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2465 CRL.P No. 15257 of 2025 police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet drawing the petitioner into the web of crime as a sole accused of alleged of killing the son. The learned counsel for the petitioner is now wanting to project that there are serious contradictions in the evidence of the eye witness while drawing up the charge sheet and would submit that the statements of the eye witnesses are taken after ten months of the incident and the investigation could not have pin down the petitioner as accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. The said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is unacceptable as in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court would not venture into deciphering evidence of the eye witness, particularly in the teeth of the offence of being murder and destruction of evidence. The petitioner may be the complainant, the deceased may be his son, but it does not mean that this Court would interfere at this stage of the proceedings. 4. In that light, finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands rejected leaving open to the petitioner to avail of such remedy as is available in law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2465 CRL.P No. 15257 of 2025 Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT:SS