Karnataka High Court
Smt Jyothi S Hiremath vs Superintendent Of Police on 11 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.11502 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. JYOTHI S. HIREMATH
W/O LATE GOGGA
SIDDALINGSWAMY,
AGE: 50 YEARS, K 1607,
BRIGADE GATEWAY
APARTMENT,
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM WEST,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU-560055.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HALASHETTI JAGADISH SIDRAMAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AND:
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH 1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA-577501.
2. STATE BY HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
HIRIYUR-577598.
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
BOTH ARE NOW R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
3. VIJAYAN M.,
S/O MUTHUSAMY.
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
DOOR NO.326, KITTAMPATTY VILAGE,
ANTHIYUR, TQ, ERODE,
TAMIL NADU-638504.
(DRIVER OF LORRY NO.TN-52-F-1755)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M. R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
V/O DATED 29.07.2025 NOTICE TO R3
IS HELD SUFFICENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH 528 OF
BNSS-2023, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.0412 DATED 30.09.2024 REGISTERED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 281, 125,(a), 106(1) OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA
2023 AGAINST THE DECEASED GOGGA SIDDALINGASWAMY-
HUSABAND OF THE PETITIONER, AND CONSEQUENTIAL ABATE
CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.0412/2024 IN C.C.NO.1137/2024
ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HIRIYUR,
AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
13.12.2024 IN C.C.NO.1137/2024 PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HIRIYUR, WHICH ARE MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-A, C AND D, RESPECTIVELY, B) DIRECT THE 2ND
RESPONDENT POLICE TO REGISTER FIR AGAINST 3RD
RESPONDENT FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
106(1) AND 281 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023 AND
CONDUCT INVESTIGATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR FURTHER HEARING ON 07.11.2025 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING;
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
This petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR in
Crime No.412/2024 of Hiriyur Rural Police Station,
Dist.Chitradurga, registered for offences punishable under
Sections 281, 125(a), and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, against the deceased husband of the
petitioner, and the consequent abated charge-sheet filed
in C.C. No. 1137/2024.
2. The petitioner further seeks to set aside the
order dated 13.12.2024, whereby the learned Magistrate
took cognizance of the abated charge-sheet and recorded
abatement, and prays for a direction to respondent No. 2
to conduct a fresh investigation and to register an FIR
against respondent No. 3/ the lorry driver alleged to have
caused the accident.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
Facts in Brief:
3. The undisputed facts reveal that the petitioner's
husband, late Sri Siddhalingaswamy, while driving from
Bengaluru to Hospet on 30.09.2024 along with his mother,
met with a fatal accident near Hiriyur Polytechnic College
when his car collided with the rear of a lorry bearing No.
TN-52-F-1775. The lorry driver--respondent No.3 lodged a
complaint alleging that the deceased driver was rash and
negligent. Respondent No.2 registered FIR No. 412/2024,
investigated the matter, and filed an abated charge-sheet
against the deceased driver of the car. The petitioner
contends that the investigation was perfunctory, one-sided
and unfair, conducted without recording her statement,
and that her attempt to lodge a counter-complaint against
respondent No.3 was refused. She accordingly seeks
quashing of the FIR and a direction for reinvestigation by a
competent and independent agency.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
Question for Consideration:
4. The principal question that arises for
determination is:
"Whether, after filing of a final report or abated
charge-sheet, this Court can, in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction to direct a reinvestigation
into the matter; and what criteria govern the
exercise of such power?"
Judicial Power to Order Re-Investigation:
5. The power to order a re-investigation lies not
with the Magistrate but with the superior courts in exercise
of extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction. There are
numerous judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court clarifying
the same.
6. In Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC
762, the Hon'ble Supreme Court authoritatively held that:
"The Magistrate has no power to direct re-
investigation or de novo investigation in a
police-report case."
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. However, the High Court and Supreme Court, in
exercise of their inherent or constitutional powers under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226, may direct further,
fresh or re-investigation in exceptional circumstances,
where the ends of justice so demand. The Hon'ble Apex
Court further clarified that such direction must be issued
sparingly and with circumspection, and may include
transfer of investigation to another agency when credibility
of the existing investigation stands eroded.
8. In Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC
135, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reaffirmed that when an
investigation suffers from want of fairness, impartiality, or
effectiveness, the submission of a charge-sheet or
pendency of trial is no bar to ordering further or fresh
investigation. The ultimate concern of the Court is to
secure justice on the basis of true facts unearthed through
a competent agency.
9. Similarly, in Himanshu Kumar v. State of
Chhattisgarh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884, the Hon'ble
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
Supreme Court emphasized that the satisfaction of lack of
fair or effective investigation is the precondition for
directing reinvestigation, and the power must be exercised
only when the record discloses serious procedural lapses
that have undermined the credibility of the earlier
investigation.
10. This principle was reiterated in Peethambaran
v. State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 553, which
clarified that:
"Further investigation is a continuation of
the earlier investigation based on
discovery of fresh material;"
11. Re-investigation or de novo investigation can be
ordered only by a higher court, with reasons recorded
showing that the earlier investigation is incapable of being
acted upon.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
12. In Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar,
(2023 SCC OnLine SC 2233), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court summarized the governing principles thus:
(a) A Magistrate may order further investigation under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. if circumstances so warrant.
(b) In appropriate cases, where the High Court finds the
investigation tainted, biased, or directionless, it may, in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., direct re-
investigation or further investigation.
(c) Such powers are to be exercised sparingly, with
circumspection, and only in exceptional cases to secure
real and substantial justice.
13. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Hemendra Reddy,
(2023) 16 SCC 779, relying upon Rama Chaudhary v.
State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346, the Court reiterated
that "further investigation" means additional or
supplemental investigation in continuation of earlier
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
inquiry, while "re-investigation" commences ab initio only
when the earlier investigation is rendered wholly
unreliable.
Application to the Present Case:
14. At the outset, it is respectfully submitted that
the Investigating Officer (I.O.) has strangely rested the
core causation finding namely, that the accident occurred
due to rash and negligent driving by the deceased; almost
entirely on a purported statement of the petitioner/wife
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. This approach is
legally untenable for at least three reasons:
(i) the petitioner is admittedly not an
eyewitness;
(ii) a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not
substantive evidence and can at best be used
for contradiction as contemplated by Section
162 Cr.P.C.; and
(iii) the alleged statement itself is disputed by
the petitioner, who asserts that she neither
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
witnessed the occurrence nor attributed
negligence to her husband.
15. The jurisprudence is settled that a Section 161
statement cannot be the foundation for a determinative
finding on culpability; it has limited utility only to
contradict a witness in trial. The I.O.'s reliance on a
hearsay narration by a non-eyewitness to conclusively
brand the deceased as negligent is contrary to law and
vitiates the fairness of the investigation at inception.
Petitioner's non-eyewitness status and disputed
attribution of negligence:
16. This court deems it fit to extract the 161
statement allegedly given by the petitioner. The same is
extracted, which reads as under:
"£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÃÛ £É, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À vÁ¬ÄAiÀiÁzÀ
²æêÀÄw dUÀ£ÁävÉ gÀªj
À UÀÉ §ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ¸À£Áä£À PÁAiÀÄðPÀª
æ ÀÄ EzÀÄÝzj
À AzÀ £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ dUÀ£Áävg
É ª
À j
À UÀÉ §ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÀÉ PÀgz
ÀÉ ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. ¸À£Áä£À
æ ÀÄ ªÀÄÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ 30.09.2024 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ dUÀ£Áävg
PÁAiÀÄðPÀª É ª
À j
À UÉ
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £ÀA.PÉ.J 35 J£ï-6575
ºÉƸÀ¥ÃÉ mÉUÉ PÀgz
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
Û É PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ. EzÉà ¢£À ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 4.15
£Éà PÁj£°è £ÀªÀÄä CvÉU
¦.JA. UÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¨sA
À ¢PÀgÀÄ £À£U
À É ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr ¹zÀÝ°AUÀ¸Áé«Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
CªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä dUÀ£Áävg
É ª
À ÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÁgÀÄ »jAiÀÄÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ
ªÉÄÃnPÀÄPÉð ¥Á°mÉQßPï PÁ¯ÉÃeï §½ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVzÀÄÝ C¥ÀWÁvÀz°
À è
¹zÀÞ°AUÀ¸Áé«Ä gÀªg
À ÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÀÉ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ »jAiÀÄÆgÀÄ
¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvU
ÀæÉ ÀÉ §AzÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¹zÀÝ °AUÀ¸Áé«Ä gÀªg
À À vÀ¯U
É ÀÉ,
ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ, PÉÊUÀ½UÀ,É §®ºÉÆmÉÖU,ÀÉ JzÉUÀÉ §®ªÁzÀ ¥ÉlÄÖU¼
À ÀÄ ©zÀÄÝ
gÀPU
ÀÛ ÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁV ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÝgÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ dUÀ£Áävg
É ª
À j
À UÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ vÀ¯U
É É PÉÊ
PÁ®ÄUÀ½UÉ ¥ÉlÄÖU¼
À ÀÄ ©zÀÄÝ gÀPU
ÀÛ ÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁV ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ §UÉÎ
«ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½AiÀįÁV F ¢£À 3-45 ¦.JªÀiï. £À°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ
¹zÀÝ°AUÀ¸Áé«ÄgÀªg
À ÀÄ ªÉÄÃlPÀÄPÉð ¥Á°mÉQßPÀ PÁ¯ÉÃeï ªÀÄÄA¢£À »jAiÀÄÆgÀÄ-
avÀz
æ ÀÄUÀðzÀ K£ï ºÀZï-48 gÀ¸A
ÀÛÉ iÀÄ°è. avÀz
æ ÀÄUÀðzÀ PÀqU
É ÀÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÃUÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤®ðPÀv
ë ¬
É ÄAzÀ ZÀ°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV
ªÀÄÄAzÉ CzÉà ªÀiÁUÀðªÁV ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ £ÀA n.J£ï-52- J¥ï1755 £ÉÃ
¯ÁjAiÀÄ »A¨ÁUÀPÉÌ rQÌ ¥Àr¹zÀÝjAzÀ PÁgÀÄ dRAUÉÆArzÀÄÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ
ªÉÄîÌAqÀAvÉ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁV »jAiÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvU
Éæ É PÀgz
ÀÉ ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
§gÀĪÀµÀÖg°
À è ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛg.ÀÉ JA§ÄzÁV ºÁUÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉA
Û iÀĪÀjUÉ
»jAiÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvA
Éæ iÀÄ° aQvÉì PÉÆr¹ ºÉaÑ£À aQvÉU
ì É ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ
ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä vÀĪÀÄPÀÆj£À §½ PÀgz
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ°è
ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÀÉ JAzÀÄ w½¬ÄvÀÄ F C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ
¹zÀÝ°AUÀ¸Áé«ÄgÀªg
À À CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀv¬
É ÄAzÀ GAmÁVgÀÄvÀz
Û É JAvÉ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉ."
17. The petitioner's consistent case is that she was
in Hospet at the time of the accident. She learnt of the
incident at around 4:30 p.m. from her uncle and reached
Hiriyur Government Hospital only by 7:30 p.m. She
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
categorically denies having given any inculpatory
statement or having witnessed the manner of collision.
Even assuming the I.O. recorded a statement, any opinion
therein that "the accident happened due to the
carelessness of my husband" is, at best, an uninformed
inference by a layperson and inadmissible as to the fact in
issue. The I.O.'s use of such a non-expert opinion, without
independent forensic, mechanical, or scene-of-occurrence
corroboration betrays a pre-determined investigative
approach.
18. On reading the witness statement extracted
above, it in itself manifests internal infirmities: it cites
lorry No. TN-52 F-1755, whereas the FIR/spot proceedings
mention TN-52 F-1775. This registration-number
discrepancy is not a trivial clerical error, it goes to the
identity of the colliding vehicles and underscores why an
independent reconstruction of the incident by the
eyewitness (speed, lane discipline, braking profile, point of
impact) is indispensable. Yet, the I.O. has brushed aside
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
these inconsistencies by leaning on a non-eyewitness 161
statement.
Section 161 Cr.P.C.: limited evidentiary value
ignored by I.O.:
19. It is trite that statements under Section 161
Cr.P.C. are not evidence of the truth of their contents;
they are previous statements usable only for contradiction
of the maker during trial. They do not, by themselves,
prove negligence, speed, lane discipline, or causation. The
I.O.'s conduct in elevating a 161 statement into the
determinative proof of rashness amounts to misapplication
of law and violates the mandate of a fair, impartial and
scientific investigation.
Failure to collect and analyze primary/technical
evidence:
20. The investigation record itself shows that the
spot mahazar, drawn between 5:50 p.m. and 6:50 p.m. on
30.09.2024, is conspicuously silent on critical
measurements: while "tyre marks" are noted along with
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
length, neither the width nor the inter-track distance is
recorded. Without these metrics, attribution of skid/tyre
marks to a particular vehicle is speculative. The omission
defeats even a basic accident-reconstruction protocol.
21. The I.O. has further disregarded vehicle-borne
electronic evidence that is ordinarily available and crucial
in modern accident analysis:
ESC/ABS footprints and event logs;
Event Data Recorder (EDR)/airbag control module
downloads;
ECU speed and brake-pedal application profiles;
Dash-cam/CCTV retrievals from the highway corridor and
toll plazas.
22. The petitioner specifically pointed out that the
car was equipped with Electronic Stability Control and
Anti-lock Braking System, these systems prevent wheel
lock and materially affect the existence and morphology of
skid marks. The I.O. neither tested these assertions nor
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
secured the corresponding datasets, yet hastened to a
conclusion of "rear-end = driver rashness," which is an
invalid presumption in law and science.
23. The illegality is compounded by the police
refusal, on 14.12.2024, to register the petitioner's
complaint against the lorry driver (Respondent No. 3),
followed by an administrative "closure" communication
dated 09.01.2025 citing the abated charge-sheet without
notice to the petitioner. A fair inquiry demanded that the
counter-version be registered and probed and instead, the
I.O. chose the path of least resistance by fastening
negligence on the deceased via a non-eyewitness 161
statement, thereby foreclosing a two-sided investigation.
Consequence: erosion of credence; need for fresh,
independent probe:
24. In the above circumstances, the credence and
reliability of the investigation stand eroded. The I.O.'s
reliance on a non-eyewitness 161 statement as the central
plank for determining fault, coupled with basic forensic
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
lapses (non-measurement of tyre-mark geometry; non-
collection of ESC/ABS/EDR data; unresolved registration-
number discrepancy), renders the existing investigation
incapable of being acted upon. The record therefore meets
the well-established threshold for directing re-investigation
by a senior, independent officer/agency, while treating the
petitioner's representation dated 06.12.2024 as a separate
FIR for a full, technology-assisted reconstruction of the
accident.
25. In the present case, the FIR was registered
against a deceased person, and an abated charge-sheet
was filed without any material against a living accused.
The petitioner/ widow of the deceased was neither
examined nor informed of the proceedings. The spot
mahazar prepared by the investigating officer reveals
glaring omissions, including failure to record critical
measurements necessary to identify tyre marks.
26. The record also shows that the petitioner's
subsequent complaint against the lorry driver (respondent
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
No. 3) was not registered, and was closed by a mere
administrative communication citing the abated charge-
sheet. Such perfunctory approach strikes at the root of fair
and impartial investigation, rendering the entire process
suspect.
27. In light of the above factual background, this
Court finds that the investigation conducted by respondent
No. 2 is neither fair nor credible, and has failed to examine
vital aspects bearing on causation of the accident. The
credence and reliability of the investigation stand seriously
eroded.
28. Accordingly, the case falls squarely within the
principles laid down in Pooja Pal, Himanshu Kumar,
and Devendra Nath Singh, warranting judicial
intervention to ensure that the truth is unearthed and
justice is done to both sides. For the foregoing reasons,
the point for consideration is answered in the
'affirmative'.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
Conclusion and Directions:
29. For the reasons stated above, this Court holds
that:
The FIR in Crime No. 412/2024 and the consequent
abated charge-sheet in C.C. No. 1137/2024 are
unsustainable in law, having been registered and pursued
against a deceased person. The investigation conducted by
respondent No. 2 suffers from serious procedural
irregularities and lack of fairness. The petitioner's
grievance merits fresh examination by an independent and
competent agency.
30. This Court is conscious that the power to direct
re-investigation must be exercised rarely and only where
the original investigation stands vitiated by palpable
unfairness. However, where the investigation itself begins
against a deceased person and concludes without
examining material witnesses or collecting essential
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
WP No. 11502 of 2025
HC-KAR
evidence, such process cannot be allowed to stand in the
way of discovering the truth.
31. Justice cannot rest on procedural finality when
the foundation of investigation itself is flawed. The
ultimate duty of this Court, as repeatedly emphasized by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is to ensure that justice is
secured on the basis of true facts, unearthed through a
committed, fair, and competent investigating agency.
32. Accordingly, it is ordered as follows:
ORDER
i. Petition is allowed.
ii. The FIR in Crime No. 412/2024 of Hiriyur
Rural Police Station, Dist. Chitradurga and
the consequent abated charge-sheet in C.C.
No. 1137/2024 are hereby quashed.
iii. A direction is issued to the Superintendent
of Police, Chitradurga District, to entrust the
case to a senior officer not below the rank of
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46178
HC-KAR
Deputy Superintendent of Police, who shall
conduct a re-investigation into the
circumstances of the accident, strictly in
accordance with law.
iv. The investigating officer shall treat the
petitioner's representation dated 16.12.2024
as a formal complaint, register the same,
and proceed in terms of Section 156(1)
Cr.P.C.
v. The investigation shall be completed within
a period of three months, and a report shall
be submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NJ
CT:SI
