ORDER :

W.P.No.5243/2022 is filed by the petitioner accused No.3 under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India read with 482 of Cr.P.C for issue of writ of certiorari or order or direction of appropriate in nature for quashing the FIR and complaint and the charge sheet filed by the Byadarahalli Police Station in respect of Crime No.404/2021 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District in S.C.No.21/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

2. In Crl.P.No.2807/2022 filed by the same accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for enlarging petitioner on bail in the same S.C.No.21/2022 (Crime No.404/2021).

3. Whereas Crl.P.No.3302/2022 filed by the accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on bail in the same S.C.No.21/2022 (Crime No.404/2021).

4. Heard the arguments of learned senior counsel Hasmath Pasha in Writ Petition No.5243/2022 as well as Criminal Petition No.2807/2022 and counsel for petitioner in Crl.P.No.3302/2022 and learned S.P.P.-II and HCGP for the State.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on the first information report lodged by the Police Inspector of Byadarahallai Police Station, Sub-Inspector of police registered a case against the petitioner and another in Crime No.404/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC. It is alleged by him that on 17.09.2021 the accused No.1 Hallagere Shankar, came to the police station and filed a written complaint, it was registered as UDR No.59/2021 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C where it was stated by him that his wife namely Bharathi and his two married daughters Sinchana Kumari-wife of the accused No.3 and Sindhu Rani-wife of the accused No.2 and son Madhusagar and his grand son were found dead in his house. The accused No.1-Hallagere Shankar's wife and three children had committed suicide. After registration of the information in the said UDR, the police inspector visited the spot, shifted the dead bodies and after conducting the inquest Panchnama, all bodies were subjected to the post mortem examination. Subsequently, the Police Inspector made a preliminary enquiry under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and came to know that the deceased Sinchana Kumari, Sindhu Rani and Madhusagar, all three of them had left the death notes, alleging various complaints against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and in-laws. Therefore, he lodged complaint to SHO, the Sub-Inspector of police and inturn the Sub-Inspector registered the case and arrested the petitioners. They have been remanded to judicial custody. The accused Nos.1 to 3 had moved bail petition before this Court which were rejected. The accused No.3 also filed second bail petition, which also came to be rejected and now he is before this Court by filing Crl.P.No.2807/2022 for granting bail in third successive bail petition and accused No.2 came before the court for second bail petition in Crl.P.No.3302/2022 and the accused No.3 also filed writ petition challenging the charge sheet before the court.

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 has strenuously contended that the Police Inspector is the SHO of the police station and such being the case, the charge sheet filed by the police Sub-Inspector who is inferior officer to the police inspector has no authority to file charge sheet. Therefore the charge sheet is liable to be set aside and return back as it was defective charge sheet for filing fresh charge sheet and to cure the defect of filing, an officer who is unauthorized under the law. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Singh Vs State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) reported in 2020 (10) SCC 120 and contended that this point was not urged by the petitioner in the previous bail petition and therefore, when the charge sheet is not filed by the authorised police officer under Section 173 (2) of Cr.P.C., the charge sheet becomes unsustainable and non-est in law, therefore, praye