Judicial intervention in criminal investigations is warranted to ensure fair process and public trust when local authorities are ineffective or biased.

ORDER :

E.S. INDIRESH, J.

Heard Sri. Kulkarni Shrinath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the 'B' Report, dated 21.10.2023, in Crime No.12 of 2023 on the file of 41^st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore, inter-alia, sought for a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 23.03.2023 produced at Annexure-D to the writ petition inter-alia sought for re-investigation by a independent agency in accordance with law.

3. Relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, on 23.02.2023, FIR came to be registered by the respondent No.4 in Crime No. 12 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC , based on the complaint filed by one Smt. Girijamma Boreddy, wife of the deceased- Shankarappa Boreddy. In the said proceedings, one Nandini, resident of Bangalore has been shown as accused. It is also forthcoming from the complaint filed by Smt. Girijamma Boreddy that, on 22.02.2023, around 10 a.m, she received a message, from the Police that her husband's body is lying on the railway track, within the limits of Bangalore City Police and thereafter, taken to the hospital. Immediately, complainant rushed to the hospital and identified dead body as her husband. It is also forthcoming that, the husband of the complainant-Shankarappa Boreddy, had left death notes, which were produced before the Investigation Officer, wherein, it is stated that deceased has borrowed personal loans from ICICI bank, and IDBI bank to the tune of Rs.28 lakhs and deceased has lended it to said Smt. Nandini. It is also averred in the writ petition that, the proceedings before the competent Criminal Court came to be closed based on the 'B' report filed by the respondent-Police. Hence, the petitioner being brother of the deceased-Shankarappa Boreddy, seeks re-investigation of the case.

4. I have carefully examined the entire records produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate with regard to the investigation being conducted by the City Railway Police in Crime No.12 of 2023, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC , which is not a compoundable offence, however, based on the statement made by the complainant, the respondent-Police authorities have filed 'B' report and same was accepted by the Trial Court, which is impermissible in law. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, taking into consideration the averments made in the writ petition, which requires a detailed investigation by an independent agency other than the respondent No.4, and that apart, since, the entire case came to be closed abruptly based on the statement made by the complainant therein, the Trial Court could not have closed the case based on the 'B' report filed by the respondent No.4 as the offence alleged in the case is punishable under of .

5. It is settled principle in law that normally this Court, while excising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India restrained from transfer the investigation or re-investigation or further investigation and interfere be limited and used sparingly unless to do complete justice and to ensure that there is no violation of fundamental rights. It is to be noted that in the present case the respondent- police filed 'B' report before the Trial Court in which the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC , which is impermissible in law, and therefore, to do compete justice and to enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, I feel that the investigation be made over to State Investigating Agency-CID.

6. It is r