Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
SMT. THARA PEETHAMBARAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. importance of jurisdictional rules in investigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments surrounding procedural legality regarding investigation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. judicial discretion in investigation orders under cr.p.c. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. nature of further investigation vs. re-investigation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. clear distinction in legal definitions relevant to investigation procedures. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. final ruling on procedural adherence and consequences. (Para 16 , 17) |
ORAL ORDER
2. Heard Sri.C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.Raghavendra K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP along with Sri.Chamappa Erappa, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, Sri.Bhargav K.S., learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the concerned Court committed a procedural illegality in referring the matter for re/further investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C ., and while incorporating Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 , the Court appears to have got itself confused as to what should be followed, BNSS or Cr.P.C . He would contend tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
