[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri.Snehamayi Krishna vs The Director General And Inspector ... on 25 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:17045
WP No. 24708 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 24708 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SNEHAMAYI KRISHNA
S/O LATE SRI. L. SIDDAPPA,
AGE 54 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO.335,
BANDIPALYA, SACHIDANANDA
GANAPATHI ASHRAMA POST,
MYSORE - 570 025.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
Court of
Karnataka INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BESIDES RBI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER,
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BESIDES RBI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:17045
WP No. 24708 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
SOUTHERN RANGE, OFFICE AT JALAPURI,
KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE,
MYSURU - 570 019.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
MYSORE DISTRICT,
OFFICE AT JALAPURI,
KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE,
MYSURU - 570 019.
5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SALIGRAMA POLICE STATION
SALIGRAMA TALUK,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 604.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 TO 3 TO CONDUCT A THROUGH AND
IMPARTIAL FURTHER INVESTIGATION INTO THE DEATH OF MR.
RAKSHITH, PERTAINING TO CRIME NO. 42/2019 OF
SALIGRAMA POLICE STATION, THIS INVESTIGATION SHOUDL
RIGOROULSY EXAMINE ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE, INCLUDING
ALIBI PROOFS, THE VIDEO RECORDING MADE BY THE
DECEASED, AND THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER ON 07.02.2024 AND 02.05.2024 TO THE R-3 IT IS
IMPERATIVE THAT THE INVESTIGATION BE CONDUCTED IN
STRICT ADHERENCE TO LEGAL STANDARDS, ENSURING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF FAIR INVESTIGATION
AS STIPULATED IN JUDICIAL GUIDELINES AND THE
KARNATAKA POLICE MANUAL FURTHERMORE, THE
RESPONDENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE
EVIDENCE OBJECTIVELY AND TRANSPARENTLY ENSURING
THAT JUSTICE IS SERVED AND THAT THE INVESTIGATION
PROCESS UPHOLDS THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF INTEGRITY
AND FAIRNESS AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:17045
WP No. 24708 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is presented by the
petitioner, who claims to be a journalist and social worker.
The substance of the grievance projected in the petition is
that the investigation conducted by the jurisdictional police
in respect of a criminal case, now culminating in a charge
sheet in S.C. No.436/2022 pending before the learned
Sessions Judge, is defective and has resulted in the
alleged false implication of several innocent persons. On
these averments, the petitioner seeks a direction for
further investigation, submission of a detailed report
before this Court, and award of compensation to the
accused persons on account of the alleged hardship
suffered by them.
2. At the outset, this Court is required to examine
the maintainability of the petition in exercise of its
NC: 2026:KHC:17045
HC-KAR
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. A careful reading of the pleadings
would indicate that the petitioner has not demonstrated
any infringement of a legally enforceable right personal to
him. The grievance sought to be projected is not individual
or personal, but is broadly couched in the nature of a
public cause questioning the correctness of the
investigation and the filing of the charge sheet.
3. It is trite that the writ jurisdiction of this Court
cannot be invoked in the absence of a legal injury or
violation of a fundamental or statutory right. The
extraordinary jurisdiction is not intended to be converted
into a forum for ventilating generalized grievances or to
supervise criminal investigations at the instance of third
parties, who have no direct nexus with the proceedings. If
such petitions are entertained, it would open the
floodgates for interference in criminal proceedings at the
behest of busybodies and interlopers, thereby undermining
the statutory framework governing criminal trials.
NC: 2026:KHC:17045
HC-KAR
4. In the present case, the persons directly affected,
namely the accused against whom the charge sheet is
filed, have not chosen to question either the investigation
or the final report before the competent court. The Code of
Criminal Procedure provides adequate and efficacious
remedies to such aggrieved persons, including seeking
discharge, quashing of proceedings, or other remedies
known to law. In the absence of any challenge by the
affected parties, a third party cannot be permitted to
maintain a writ petition seeking directions for further
investigation or compensation.
5. The reliefs sought by the petitioner, though
couched in the language of enforcement of justice, are in
substance in the nature of a public interest litigation.
However, even in matters of public interest, the
jurisdiction under Article 226 is not meant to be invoked in
criminal law matters relating to investigation and
prosecution, except in rare and exceptional circumstances
where gross miscarriage of justice or violation of
NC: 2026:KHC:17045
HC-KAR
fundamental rights is demonstrated. No such exceptional
circumstance is made out in the present case.
6. This Court has, on several occasions, deprecated
the growing tendency of filing petitions under Article 226
seeking sweeping directions in matters where the
petitioner has no locus standi. Entertaining such petitions
would not only burden the constitutional courts but would
also result in unwarranted interference with pending
criminal proceedings, which are required to proceed in
accordance with the procedure established by law.
7. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that
the present writ petition is a clear instance of misuse of
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Though this
Court would have been justified in imposing exemplary
costs to deter such frivolous and misconceived litigation, it
refrains from doing so and instead deems it appropriate to
caution the petitioner against indulging in such practices in
future.
NC: 2026:KHC:17045
HC-KAR
Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit
and not maintainable, stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
HDK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
