IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION No.100545 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SIDDAPPA S/O NARASAPPA BHANDIWDDAR AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. LAYADGUNDI, TQ. GULEDGUDDA, DIST. BAGALKOT.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOURISHANKAR H. MOT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION, DHARWAD, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD.

2. SHASHIKALA PATROTI D/O MUTTAPPA AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN R/AT. LAYADGUNDI VILLAGE, KATTIMANI TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201.

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR …RESPONDENTS LAXMAN KATTIMANI (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;

Date: 2026.02.17

16:59:13 +0530 SRI. L.S. SULLAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2022 PASSED AGAINST THE ACCUSED/PETITIONER ON APPLICATION FILED BY RESPONDENT U/S 231(1) OF CR.P.C., PENDING BEFORE COURT OF 3 RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT DHARWAD IN SC NO.69/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 376, 417 AND 420 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

Heard Sri Gourishankar H.Mot, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri L.S.Sullad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. Accused is the petitioner challenging the Order passed by the learned Session Judge in S.C No.69/2021 allowing the application filed by the prosecution under Section 231(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to produce the mobile handset and identity card of the victim.

3. Accused is charged for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The document and the material object that is now sought to be produced along with the application under Section 231(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was admittedly not seized during the course of investigation.

4. Therefore, application filed by the prosecution was objected to by the accused by filing detailed written objections.

5. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, took note of the principles of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.L.Udaykumar and another vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2018 Crl.LJ 3925 and allowed the application.

6. Validity of the said Order is called in question in this petition.

7. Sri Gourishankar Mot, learned counsel for the petitioner / accused reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently contend that in order to plug the loophole in the case of the prosecution, additional material object and the document which are admittedly not seized by the Investigation Officer during the course of investigation are sought to be placed on record.

8. Therefore, request of the prosecution could not have been entertained by the learned Trial Judge and therefore, sought for allowing the petition.

9. Per contra, Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri L.S.Sullad, learned counsel for the defacto complainant support the impugned judgment contending that the mobile telephone and the identity card of the victim are utmost necessary to establish the case of the prosecution.

10. They would further contend that the accused has got the right of cross-examination on the additional material object and the documentary evidence that is placed on record. Shunning of best evidence from the Court is not contemplated under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore sought for dismissal of the petition.

11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

12. Learned Trial Judge in the impugned order took note of the relevant aspects of the matter in detail at paragraphs11 and 12. The additional