Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 23847

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104402 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)

BETWEEN:

1. ARUN NAGAREDDY, S/O. MAHESH NAGAREDDY, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

2. KIRAN S/O. MAHESH GOUDA NAGEREDDY, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

3. LAKSHMAN JAKKANAVVAR S/O. GURUPADAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

4. SIDDU @ SIDDAPPA NAGAREDDY S/O. KADAPPA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

5. SRISHAILA VALIMARADA S/O. DUNDAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

6. KADAPPA NAGAREDDY S/O. YALLAPPA AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

7. MUTTAPPA HOSUR S/O. ERAPANNA, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

8. GIRIMALLAYYA GANACHARI S/O. CHENNAYYA, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

ALL ARE R/O. SHIROL VILLAGE, MUDHOL TQ., BAGALKOTE DIST. ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI JAMBANAGOUD BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (MUDHOL POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.

2. YALLAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA TALAGERI, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIROL-587313, MUDHOL TQ., BAGALKOTE DIST. ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. MANORANJANI, ADV. FOR R2)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Jambanagoud Basavaraj
For the Respondents: Abhishek Malipatil, Manoranjani

A trial court cannot order further investigation under Section 173(8) once a criminal trial has commenced. Instead, if evidence incriminating un-charged individuals emerges during the trial, the court must exercise its power under Section 319 to summon and proceed against such persons as accused.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(8) and 319 - Criminal trial - Further investigation - Power of Magistrate/Sessions Court - A Magistrate or Sessions Court does not have the power to direct the investigating agency to conduct further investigation once the trial has commenced and is in progress. The Court cannot suo motu direct further investigation or order reinvestigation. The proper legal recourse upon discovery of evidence during trial implicating others is to exercise powers under Section 319 of the Code to summon such persons to face trial rather than unsettling the trial process by ordering further investigation. (Paras 15, 18, 20, 26, 28)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Powers of the Court - Once cognizance of an offence is taken, the trial court has full dominion over the case. While the court may rightfully express dissatisfaction with investigation deficiencies, the correct procedure to address un-arraigned persons appearing to be guilty is to invoke Section 319, which permits summoning based on prima facie evidence from examination-in-chief, without requiring prior testing through cross-examination. (Paras 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were initially named in the complaint but excluded from the charge sheet, challenged an order passed by the trial court directing the investigation agency to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code during the middle of an ongoing trial, based on testimony incriminating the petitioners.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that directing further investigation mid-trial causes procedural complications, such as conflicting stances between previous investigation reports and current evidence. It concluded that trial courts must prioritize the mechanism provided under Section 319 for adding accused persons based on trial evidence instead of ordering further investigation, which interrupts the trial and exceeds the court's jurisdiction post-cognizance.

Issues: Whether a Sessions Court has the jurisdiction to direct the police to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code after the trial has commenced and witnesses have been examined.

Ratio Decidendi: A trial court cannot order further investigation after the trial is in progress, as such power does not align with the scheme of the Code once cognizance is taken. The appropriate remedy for implicating new persons is the invocation of Section 319, which allows the court to bring them into the proceedings based on prima facie evidence, ensuring a fair and continuous trial process.

Result: Petition allowed; the impugned order for further investigation is set aside.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, (U/.528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.5.2025 ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO ADDITIONAL ACCUSED AND THE ORDER DATE 08.07.2025 DIRECTING THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE AND SUBMIT REPORT AS PER U/S.173(8) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.3/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/PROPOSED ACCUSED NOS.4 TO 9, 12 AND 13 IS CONCERNED ONLY FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 120(B), 342 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND U/S.3(2) (VA) OF SC/ST ACT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’/Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023²Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS, 2023’, by the accused Nos.4 to 9, 12 and 13 with the following prayer:

“WHEREFORE, the petitioners/proposed accused no’s 4 to 9, 12 and 13 most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased allow the petition and quash

i. The order dated 7.5.2025 issuance of notice to additional accused and

ii. the order dated 8.7.2025 directing the Investigating Officer to investigate and submit report as per U/S 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and all further proceedings in Spl.C. No.3/2020 pending on the file of Hon’ble IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote in so far as petitioners/proposed accused no’s 4 to 9, 12 and 13 is concerned only for the offence U/S 302, 120(B), 342 R/W 34 of IPC and U/S 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act. And in the interest of justice.”

2. It is the brief case of prosecution as per the charge sheet material that accused No.1, accused No.14 and accused No.15 are alleged to have committed offence of murder and are facing charges under Sections 302, 342, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989³Hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC and ST ACT’. Initially in the complaint allegations were made against 13 persons, arraying them as accused Nos.1 to 13.

3. The Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet only against accused No.1 and arrayed two other persons as accused No.14 and accused No.15, whose name is not mentioned in FIR. The person shown as accused No.1 in the complaint and FIR is also arrayed as accused No.1 in the charge sheet. Accused No.14 and accused No.15 are not named in the complaint and FIR, but they have been arraigned as accused No.14 and accused No.15 in the charge sheet. Accused Nos.2 to 13, who were named in the complaint and FIR, have been dropped from the charge sheet. Therefore, the charge sheet is only against accused No.1, accused No.14 and accused No.15.

4. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial has been commenced and witnesses have been examined. During the course of evidence, charge sheet witness No.16 (CW.16), when examined as PW.27, has named the other persons, who were stated in the complaint and FIR as accused Nos.2 to 13 (named in the FIR but dropped from the charge sheet) as having committed the offence alleged, by stating their specific roles. Thereafter, the prosecution has filed an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., before the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot⁴Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Sessions Court’, which is opposed by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order dated 08.07.2025 directing the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation and submit a report under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. against other accused persons. This order is under challenge in this petition.

5. Heard arguments from learned counsel Sri. Jambanagoud Basavaraj appearing for the petitioners, learned HCGP Sri. Abhishek Malipatil appearing for re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document