Karnataka High Court
WA/1349/2026 of MR MANJUNATH V Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 29 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010324312026 NC: 2026:KHC:39500-DB WA No. 1349 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO.1349 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.1349 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. MANJUNATH .V
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
W/O LATE VENKATESH,
R/AT K.B. PALLI VILLAGE,
GUDIPALLI MANDALAM,
KUPPAM TALUK,
CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NAIK NITYANAND VENKATARAMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
POLICE BHAVAN
BM ROAD, RAMANAGARA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 28.11.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE
IN
W.P.NO.15220/2025
(GM-RES)
FILED
BY
THE
PETITIONER/APPELLANT
AND
TO
ALLOW
THE
SAID
W.P.NO.15220/2025 (GM-RES) AS PRAYED FOR BY GRANTING
FURTHER ORDERS OR DIRECTIONS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The learned Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.
2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15220/2025 [GM-RES], inter alia, praying that the directions be issued for further investigation in S.C.No.133/2020 registered at Kaggalipura Police Station, pending on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru.
HC-KAR
3. The appellant is the son of the deceased victim. The First Information Report [FIR] was lodged by the PSI of the Kaggalipura Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] against accused Nos.1 to 5. The investigation conducted thereafter revealed that the accused had committed the murder of the appellant's father. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 143, 302 and read with Section 149 of the IPC against the said accused.
4. It is the appellant's case that the persons named as witnesses (CW2 to CW5) had knowledge of the incident and did not inform the police and therefore, they also ought to have been arrayed as accused and not as witnesses.
5. The learned Single Judge examined the statements made by the said persons and found that the statements did not reveal about their participation in the commission of the offence. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. We find no infirmity with the said decision.
6. It is also noted that the said petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 [CrPC]/ Section 528 of the
HC-KAR
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS]. However, we note that the appellant's petition is, in essence, one under Section 482 of CrPC. Therefore, the present writ appeal may not be maintainable.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
8. However, we clarify that none of the observations made by this Court would impede the concerned Court and authorities from independently exercising their jurisdiction in accordance with law.
9. Pending application stands disposed of.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
AT List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21