S H V Ramakrishna v. State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 15675 OF 2020 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:

¶1S H V RAMAKRISHNA S/O S V S N MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,.

¶2PRASHANTHI SATTIRAJU W/O S H V RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.44-41-7/1, CHEKKUDU BUILDING, NANDHAGIRINAGAR, AKKAYYAPALEM, VISHAKAPATTNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-530 016. …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MAHESH KUMAR JOSHI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA V REDDY.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOLLEGALA RURAL POLICE KOLLEGALA CHAMARAJA NAGAR KARNATAKA-571 440 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT.

¶2THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY,

by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 OR R2 WHO WOULD BE BETTER EQUIPED, TO RE-INVESTIGATE INTO THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF THEIR SON SATTIRAJ ABHISHEKS DEATH THAT HAPPENED ON 14.03.2013 AT BHARACHUKKE WATERFALLS, SHIVNASAMUDRA IN KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR WHICH WAS REGISTERED AS UDR NO.07/2013 BEFORE THE R1 POLICE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

¶1Petitioners alleging apprehension with regard to the investigation undertaken by the respondent No.1-police, into incident of death of their son, Sattiraj Abhishek, under suspicious circumstances, which is subject matter of a case in UDR No. 07/2013, are before this Court seeking following reliefs; "WHEREFORE, the Petitioners most humbly pray this Hon'ble Court to direct the Respondent-1 or Respondent-2, who would be better equipped, to re-

investigate into the actual cause of their son Sattiraj Abhishek's death that happened on 14/03/2013 at Barachukke Waterfalls, Shivanasamudra in Kollegala Taluk, Chamarajnagar which was registered as UDR No.07/2013 before the Respondent-1 Police, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶2It is alleged that their son had gone on a picnic with 9 of his friends and while their son was swimming along with others, he got caught in a swirling water and drowned. That the respondent No.1-police had conducted the inquiry in a casual manner. As such they had approached this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.16560/2015 seeking direction to the respondent-police to reinvestigate the matter and the said writ petition was disposed of on

13.09.2019 reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the report dated 08.04.2013. It is in view of the said liberty reserved by this Court, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶3Learned AGA appearing for the respondents submits that report has been filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Petitioners if aggrieved, they are entitled and are at liberty to raise the protest to the said report before jurisdictional Magistrate, who is competent to pass

appropriate order in this matter. He also refers to the relief sought for, which is similar and identical to the relief which was sought in the earlier WP No.16560/2015. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶4Heard. Perused the records.

¶5Facts narrated above do not require any reiteration. From perusal of the Order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.16560/2015 produced at Annexure-M, it is clear that petitioner had on earlier occasions approached this Court seeking direction to the respondent or any other independent authority to investigate into the actual cause of death of his son Sattiraj Abhishek on 14.03.2013, subject matter of a case in UDR No.07/2013.

¶6Relief in the present petition is identical and similar. This Court in its earlier order 13.09.2019 had reserved liberty to the petitioner to challenge the final report if aggrieved. Present petition is not filed challenging the report but is only reiterating and repeating the prayer that was sought

in the earlier petition. Challenge to the said final report, if any, ought to have been made before the competent Court, where the report is stated to have been submitted.

¶7Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioners to challenge the final report before the competent Court of law in the manner provided under the law, petition is disposed of.

Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25