Ramachandraiah vs M. Manjula - 2025 Supreme(SC) 701

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 701

DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Ramachandraiah – Appellant
Versus
M. Manjula – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. G. Balaji, AOR Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Tomy Chacko, AOR Mr. Neeleshwar Pavani, Adv. Ms. Shaurya Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi, Adv. Mrs. Geetanjali Bedi, Adv. Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Ms. Anusha R, Adv. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nishanth Patil, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv. Mr. Ayush P. Shah, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Adithiya S, Adv. Mr. K. M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. V. V. V. Pattabhi Ram, Adv. Mr. Prashant Rawat, Adv. Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Khushboo Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, AOR Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Sadashiv, AOR Mr. Pranav Kumar Srivastva, Adv. Mr. Sachin Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Nishant Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Prashant Andrew Leo, Adv. Mr. Ashish Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. Ms. Mumtaz Javed Shaikh, Adv. Ms. Vandana, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Gupta, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals would call in question, the impugned Judgment dated 03.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 7784 of 2022 whereby the writ petition preferred by the Respondent No. 1 was allowed in-part and the orders of Magistrate dated 21.02.2022 and 10.03.2022 passed in P.C.R.No. 51691 of 2020 were set aside only insofar as they directed further investigation to be conducted by HAL Police Station. Furthermore, a writ of mandamus was issued to the Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi/respondent No. 11 to conduct further investigation in Crime Nos. 89 of 2020, 148 of 2020 and 7 of 2021 and submit its report to the concerned Court within an outer limit of six months.

3. The appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 10515 of 2022 has been preferred by 10th respondent before High Court which would be decided along with this appeal.

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

4.1. The Respondent No.1 who was the 1st petitioner before the High Court is the wife of one K. Raghunath (hereinafter referred to as deceased) and Respondent