H.P. Sandesh, J.

I have heard the arguments of the petitioners' counsel and respondents' counsel.

2. These two petitions are filed by the mother and the brother of the deceased Yogeshgouda Goudar seeking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking relief of issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the murder of Yogeshgouda Goudar and submit report and to take action as per the law and further writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 to initiate action against all the erring Police Officials who shielded the respondent No.10-Vinay Kulkarni and other culprits in the conspiracy of murder of Yogeshgouda Goudar and issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. In the nut-shell, the case of the petitioners that Yogeshgouda Goudar is the elected member of Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad from Hebballi Constituency and respondent No.10 is the sitting Member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Dharwad Rural Constituency and he is the Minister of Mines and Geology, Government of Karnataka and he is the In-charge Minister of Dharwad District. There was a political enmity between them and the same is exposed in a meeting dated 23/4/2016, regarding supply of drinking water in the District which went to an extent of addressing each other in unparliamentary words. The other contention that one alleged agreement of sale was executed between accused No.1 and Nagendra Todakar, who is a witness in the charge sheet and though the deceased neither interested nor having an intention to purchase the said land, the Investigating Officer willfully not enquired in these aspects and not recorded the statement of the complainant and also not investigated about the source of sale consideration and the said alleged document was totally created to narrate a story to the said murder and as a tool to escape from the clutches of law and alleged document came into existence on 24/5/2016.

4. The case of the petitioners also that one letter posted in Dharwad R.M.S. post Office to the deceased by the anonymous person on 6/6/2016 stating that his brother Uday Gouda was got murdered by Vinay Kulkarni and H.K.Patil and Vinay Kulkarni is waiting to get to kill and the said letter was reached the Heballipost office on 7/6/2016 and the same was received by Yogeshgouda's family on 14/6/2016 and same was brought to notice of Yogeshgouda Goudar and he did not take any serious about the said letter.

5. The incident of murder of Yogeshgouda Goudar was taken place on 15/6/2016 at 7.37a.m. to 7.38a.m. that accused Nos.1 to 6 are gathered before the Uday Gym, Saptapur, Dharwad and killed him mercilessly and there was CCTV footage of next building of the place where the offence committed was recorded. The investigation only relied upon three minute footage. The murderer may be there in the spot prior to the said incident. But, taking into consideration of the CCTV footage of minutes is wholly suspicious. Even there is ATM in the said building, where incident took place and investigation officer relied upon the CCTV footage of next building, which creates doubt on the investigation. In the CCTV footage relied upon by the police authority also reveals one Hundai Accent Car (Black) was involved in the said murder. Accused person gave signal to the said car which comes from the KCD towards Saptapur Circle and surprisingly, the said car again returned back towards KCD circle within 70-75 seconds. But, police official did not enquired about the said car, even though it is important clue in this case. Surprisingly, the driver and conductor of the bus belongs to BTS was examined by the police, but, they have failed to examine the car, which is part of the said murder.

6. The FIR was