In a preliminary hearing, the High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging non-filing of a charge sheet. It granted three months to complete the investigation, citing LALITHA KUMARI.
Three months granted to complete the investigation, after which the petitioner may revive the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.16544 OF 2021 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
E.H. BASAVARAJ, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, C/O K.H. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE, ROOM NO.118, SUJATHA BUILDING, NEHRU ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 001
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
S/O JAYADEV AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT OPP GAJANANA GARAGE OLD MANDI SHIMOGA-577001
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R6; NOTICE TO TOTHER RESPONDENTS IS D/WITH V/O DTD- 13/09/2021)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R6 SHALL SUBMIT THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.133/2021 DATED 20.4.2021 AS PER ANNEXUE-C ON THE FILE OF 5TH ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JD) AND JMFC AT SHIVAMOGGA.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The short grievance of the petitioner who happens to be the complainant in Cr.No.133/2021 is against non accomplishment of the investigation and filing of charge sheet or B summary report as the case may be despite lapse of a long time.
notice for respondent No.6 and notice to the other respondents having been dispensed with, resisted the writ petition contending that whether the charge sheet should be
3
filed or not is a matter pertaining to the exclusive domain of the Investigating Officer vide LALITHA KUMARI vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS, (2014) 2 SCC 1 ; therefore he contends that, no relief can be granted to the petitioner; having so argued he hastens to add fairness to his submission by stating that if a reasonable period is granted by this Court, he would instruct his client to look into the matter at the earliest. This is fair enough.
In the above circumstances, recording the submission of learned AGA appearing for respondent No.6-Investigating officer, this writ petition is disposed off. If the investigation is not completed within an outer limit of three months, it is open to the petitioner to seek revival of this petition by filing a Memo.
While computing the period of three months the time taken for obtaining the FSL Report if any, may be excluded, subject to all just exceptions.
All contentions are kept open.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court can direct the filing of a charge sheet under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Whether the investigation into Crime No.133/2021 was completed within a reasonable time.
Whether the Investigation Officer can rely on LALITHA KUMARI to resist the writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
LALITHA KUMARI vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS, (2014) 2 SCC 1Referred¶34
LALITHA KUMARI vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & OTHERS, (2014) 2 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
E.H. BASAVARAJ
SHARAZ MUJAHID SIDDIQI
ALTHAF AHMED
ABDUL GANI
ANNU SAB
VAGEESH
KRISHNA S. DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
