Disposed¶33

Sri M v. Balakrishna v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Feb 2026CRL.P/10160/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Further investigation; additional charge sheet; complainant dissatisfied with investigation report/charge sheet; liberty to apply to trial court; same Investigating Agency; condition that charges not be framed; S.482 Cr.PC; S.528 BNSS; Ss.406, 420, 468, 120(b) IPC; Crime No.306/2022; C.C.No.10488/2023; Sarjapura Police; Anekal; Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Anekal; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; CRL.P No. 10160 of 2024; Justice M.Nagaprasanna; decision dated 02-02-2026; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

No direction issued to respondent No.1 police; petition disposed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file a necessary application before the concerned Court seeking further investigation through the same Investigating Agency, effective only if charges are not framed as on the date of the order. ¶33

Sri M v Balakrishna Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent No.1 police should be directed to make further investigation and submit an additional charge sheet in C.C.No.10488/2023 arising out of Crime No.306/2022. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The petition stands disposed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file the necessary application before the concerned Court seeking further investigation into the matter through the hands of the same Investigating Agency.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

It is always open to a complainant to prefer an application before the concerned Court seeking further investigation in the matter; recourse to a different agency arises only where the case wants further investigation at the hands of a different agency, which was not this petitioner's case.

¶33

Key takeaways

The reserved liberty becomes applicable only if charges are not framed as on the date of the order.ratio¶33
In the event charges are already framed, the concerned Court shall continue the proceedings without taking note of the subject matter of this order.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 10160 of 2024), instituted under S.482 of Cr.PC (noted as filed under S.528 BNSS), by the complainant (Sri M V Balakrishna) seeking a direction to respondent No.1 police (Sarjapura Police) to make further investigation and submit an additional charge sheet in C.C.No.10488/2023 in Crime No.306/2022, for offences punishable under Ss.406, 420, 468, 120(b) IPC pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal. The petitioner complained that the charge sheet filed after investigation was shabby and the real culprits were not brought to book. The Court held that it is always open to a complainant to prefer an application before the concerned Court seeking further investigation, unless the case wants further investigation at the hands of a different agency, which was not this petitioner's case. The petition stands disposed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file the necessary application before the concerned Court seeking further investigation through the same Investigating Agency; the liberty applies only if charges are not framed as on the date of the order, and where charges stand framed, the concerned Court shall continue the proceedings without taking note of the subject matter. (M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.; order dated 02-02-2026.)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:5950 CRL.P No. 10160 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10160 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI M V BALAKRISHNA S/O VENKATACHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT MUGALURU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SAMUEL S DANDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SARJAPURA POLICE, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶16

SRI. NANDAKUMAR.M, S/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUGALURU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R1)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:5950 CRL.P No. 10160 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE TO MAKE FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND SUBMIT THE ADDITIONAL CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.10488/2023 IN CRIME NO. 306/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 468, 120(b) OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking following prayer:

¶27

"Wherefore, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 police to make further investigation and submit the additional charge sheet in C.C.No.10488/2023 in Crime No.306/2022 for the offence punishable under section 406, 420, 468, 120(b) of IPC pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Anekal, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru and grant other further reliefs in the interest of justice."

¶28

The petitioner is the complainant. The police after

¶29

investigation filed a charge sheet. However, the petitioner is not satisfied. The submission of the learned counsel for the

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5950 CRL.P No. 10160 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

petitioner is that the real culprits have not been brought to book. Therefore, the investigation report so filed before the concerned court was shabby. On the said score, the present petition is preferred.

¶33

It is always open to the petitioner to prefer an application before the concerned Court seeking further investigation in the matter, unless, the case of the petitioner is wanting further investigation at the hands of a different agency, but that is not the case of the petitioner. In that light, the petition stands disposed reserving liberty to the petitioner to file necessary application before the concerned Court seeking further investigation into the matter through the hands of the same Investigating Agency. The order would become applicable only if charges are not framed as on today. In the event charges are framed, the concerned Court shall continue the proceedings without taking note of the subject matter. Ordered accordingly.

¶34

SD/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶35

PKS

¶36

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 190

Sri M v. Balakrishna v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M v. Balakrishna v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Mrudhula Jogi Vs State of Karnataka

Gangesh Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shafiya Kouser @ Shafiya Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr. Jayakumar v Vs State of Karnataka

K R Gopinath Vs S G Builders and Developers

Sri Shyamu M @ Shyama Vs the State of Karnataka