MR. KRISHNAMURTHY H.M v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BYADARAHALLI P.S

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP.) …RESPONDENT Location: High Court of Karnataka IN THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDERS DATED 20.02.2024 RESPONDENT BYADARAHALLI P.S., VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE PETITION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506,341,504,406,465,468,471,323 R/W 34 OF IPC ARRAIGNING THE PRESENT PETITIONER AS ACCUSED NO.1 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE C.J.M COURT BENGALURU RURAL BENGALURU. CR.NO.81/2024 OF - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20727 CRL.RP No. 293 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard Sri. Shyam Sunder M S, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

2. Revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in crime No.81/2024.

3. The order dated 08.02.2024 reads as under: "Case is called out. Accused No.1 and 2 are present. APP prays time for filing objection. Time granted. The investigation officer has requisition for adding sections 419, 467 of Indian Penal Code. The counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 prays time for filing objection to said requisition. Time granted. Call on 12.02.2024." - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20727 CRL.RP No. 293 of 2024

4. Learned Senior Counsel revision petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to Annexure-'F' at page No.59 where under the investigation officer of the case has sought permission to invoke provisions of Section 419 and 467 of Indian Penal Code in the case which was found missing while registering the First Information Report. Such requisition given by the investigation officer on the very same day was permitted learned Trial Magistrate by inserting endorsement 'permitted' on 08.02.2024.

5. At the outset, the order dated 08.02.2024 is not a revisable order as it partakes the nature of an interlocutory order and there is a bar under Section 397(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure which is akin to the revisional powers of this Court as well.

6. Under such circumstances, normally, the forum for the revision petitioner seeking redressal of the grievance if any, lies elsewhere. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20727 CRL.RP No. 293 of 2024

7. Sri. Shyam Sunder at this stage submitted that all that the revision petitioner is seeking in this revision petitioner is that invoking Section 419 or 467 in the case which is contrary to the order dated 08.02.2024 if made as absolute in the charge sheet, an observation may be made by this Court that the same would not act prejudicial to the rights of the accused in further in taking such necessary action by the accused either at the time of filing an application for discharge or for seeking quashing of the charge sheet, etc., inasmuch as the prosecution may raise an objection at a later point of time when the order dated

08.02.2024 and the permission that has been granted to the investigation officer by the learned Trial Magistrate having come to the knowledge of the accused has not been challenged.

8. Such an apprehension is well founded inasmuch as the revision petitioner having approached this Court in the revision and relegating the revision petitioner to some - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:20727 CRL.RP No. 293 of 2024 other forum especially when the investigation is still in the process may not be the right action at this juncture.

9. Admittedly, the investigation is still pending. Including additional offence namely under Sections 419 and 467 might have created some prejudice to the pending bail application of the accused inasmuch as the gravity of the offence alleged against the accused would have enhanced.

10. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that the investigation officer is having the absolute and full power to investigate particular matter de hors the offence mentioned in the First Information Report. As such, in the first place there was no necessity for the investigation officer to seek permission of the learned Trial Magistrate in invoking Sections 419 and 467 of Indian Penal Code in the case. Since the matter is under investigation and appropriate report is to be filed as contemplated under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure on concluding the investigation, it is too - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:20727 CRL.RP No. 293 of 2024 premature for this Court to appreciate the contentions urged on behalf of the revision petitioner.

11. It is also pertinent to note that even after filing the final report under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the power of investigating agency would not further investigating the matter as contemplated under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

12. When such is the vast power invested in investigating agency, by the statute the action taken by the investigation officer in seeking permission of the jurisdictional Magistrate in the considered opinion of this Court may act as surplusage.

13. However, this Court cannot ignore the right of an accused that creeps in a criminal trial right from the stage of filing of First Information Report and till upto the end of trial. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:20727 CRL.RP No. 293 of 2024

14. Therefore, role assigned to a Judge to be discharged in a criminal trial are different at the time of investigation, at the time of framing the charge, at the time of actual trial and thereafter when an order of acquittal or conviction is passed by the concerned Trial Court; and when passing an order of proportionate sentence.

15. When the right of the accused has crept in the pre charge stage, the Court is the only guardian which can protect such rights of accused and no other mechanism is found under the scheme of code of criminal procedure to come to the aid of the accused whose rights are at jeoparde.

16. Taking note of the said aspect of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion contradictory material found in the form of the order dated

08.02.2024 and the permission being granted by the learned Trial Magistrate on 08.02.2024 on the requisition made by the investigation, if any rights of the accused is - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:20727 CRL.RP No. 293 of 2024 impaired which may affect him in future, in the trial, he is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

17. With the above observations, the criminal revision petition stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50