ORDER : (VENKATESH NAIK T., J.) Heard the learned counsel, Sri R.H. Angadi, for the impleading applicant on I.A. No. 1/2025 and the counsel for the petitioner. 2. Upon being satisfied with the grounds urged, the application is allowed. The proposed applicant is permitted to be impleaded as respondent No.4. The learned counsel is also permitted to amend the cause title accordingly and forthwith. 3. The petitioner – complainant is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (sitting at Gangavathi) in S.C. No.89/2021 rejecting protest petition filed by the petitioner. 4. Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Kirthilatha Patil, the learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 5. The petitioner – complainant is the husband of one Smt. Triveni (the deceased). The family members of the petitioner – complainant and the deceased were not happy with their marriage, as the petitioner belonging to Reddy family and his wife – deceased was from Maratha family. All the relatives of the deceased were harassing the petitioner and his deceased wife and were asking wife to desert the petitioner. The deceased had refused to desert the petitioner, the relatives of the petitioner’s wife conspired and have committed murder of the wife of the petitioner and assaulted the petitioner on the head with the iron rod on 17.10.2020, when they were walking home along the side of the gutter. Hence, Smt. Triveni succumbed to the injuries on the spot and the petitioner also sustained severe injuries, thus he was admitted to hospital and he was unconscious. Hence, on the same day at 10:30 p.m., the PSI of Karatagi Police Station registered a case in Crime No.207/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) on an information of Sri. Bheemanna (P.C. No.270) a Police Constable of Karatagi Police Station, alleging that, on 17.10.2020, when he was on patrolling duty, at about 07:15 p.m., he received an information that, some miscreants have committed the murder of a woman and grievously assaulted a person. 6. After enquiry, the PSI came to know the names of the deceased as Smt. Triveni, wife of Sri. Vinod Malalli and name of the injured as Sri. 6. After enquiry, the PSI came to know the names of the deceased as Smt. Triveni, wife of Sri. Vinod Malalli and name of the injured as Sri. Vinod S/o. Venkanna Malalli. He shifted the dead body to the hospital and seized iron rod, mobile phone, handbag under panchanama at the place of occurrence. 7. It is contended that initially respondent No.1 filed charge sheet against only four persons. Subsequently, based on the statement of the petitioner – injured dated 08.01.2021, accused Nos.5 to 7 were charge sheeted. Again the petitioner and his brother have made correspondence to respondent Nos.2 and 3 making allegation on the Investigating Officer, contending that, there are other accused persons, but the Investigating Officer is screening them by not arresting accused No.2 and not conducting proper investigation and thus, requested to take appropriate action. 8. It is further contended that, since the petitioner was in-patient, he sent an e-mail correspondence to the respondents narrating the fact of involvement of other accused persons and brought to their notice about CDR records. Respondent No.1 called petitioner’s brother to the Police Station and received his compliant on 12.09.2023. In the aforesaid complaint, the petitioner’s brother has narrated about an involvement of four more persons and narrated them those persons who were in contact with the prime accused and narrated that CDR were recorded after lapse of two years and the CDR is not in continuous order. There are gaps in between CDR report. Hence, such gap has been created in the CDR, in order to screen other offenders. Further, the petitioner’s brother has pointed out about an involvement of some more persons in placing phone call records, but the Investigating Officer filed B false report on 13.12.2023. 9. It is contended that, the learned Trial Judge without ascertaining the report and without passing judicial order, kept the report on file. Hence, the petitioner being aggrieved by inaction of the respondent – authorities, approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.101767/2024 and the Co-ordinate Bench disposed the matter on 06.06.2024 and directed the learned District Judge to pass order on ‘B’ report filed by the Investigating Officer. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner had filed protest petition on 30.08.2024 alongwith other documents. The learned Sessions Judge without recording sworn statement and without examining documents, rejected the protest petition on 13.11.2024. 10. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the petitioner had filed protest petition on 30.08.2024 alongwith other documents. The learned Sessions Judge without recording sworn statement and without examining documents, rejected the protest petition on 13.11.2024. 10. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2024 in S.C. No.89/2021, and inaction of the Investigating Agency, in not conducting proper investigation in the matter has filed this petition. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, the learned Trial Judge has passed impugned order without perusing ‘B’ report and the protest petition and passed an order without following procedures as contemplated under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. / Section 223(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Trial Court has failed to ascertain the facts that the connecting link of the accused persons in the present case is Call Detail Record (CDRs.) and the Investigating Officer has failed to investigate about call details of the persons named in the protest petition, however, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out case for accepting protest petition. Though the petitioner and his brother have given mobile numbers of the relatives of the accused persons, who were in continuous contact with the accused persons, at the relevant time and also immediately after commission of the offence, however, the Investigating Officer did not collect CDRs., in order to screen the real offenders. On the contrary, the Investigating Officer has collected incomplete CDRs. of the accused, with gaps in times, in order to facilitate the other accused persons and the CDRs. of accused Nos.2 and 4 were produced after lapse of two years of the incident. Further, the Investigating Officer has purposely not collected 65B certificate, this itself clearly establishes that the Investigating Officer has not included all the accused persons, who were involved in the commission of offence. 12. It is contended that the person with mobile No.6360250700 by name Rangappa Powar (relative of accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 to 7) has informed accused No.1, making a first call regarding completion of task. Rangappa and accused Nos.1 to 4 had 33 conversations before and after commission of offence. Though, the petitioner provided such information to the Investigating Officer, he files a report stating that he was labour of accused No.1’s father. 13. Rangappa and accused Nos.1 to 4 had 33 conversations before and after commission of offence. Though, the petitioner provided such information to the Investigating Officer, he files a report stating that he was labour of accused No.1’s father. 13. It is further contended that the person with mobile No.9380837207 by name Srinivas Chandan Shiva – accused No.5, was in touch with other accused persons who had 34 conversations with them, but the Investigating Officer has not investigated about said mobile number, however, he simply filed report stating that mobile number is of some lady. The Investigating Officer was aware of the fact that, the phone number was transferred after 11 months of the incident. Further, mobile No.7559481836 stands in the name of accused No.1 – sister’s husband, who was continuously in touch with accused Nos.1, 3, 5 and 6. The mobile No.7559481836 was in touch with accused Nos.1, 3 and 6 before one day of the incident and there was communication with supari killer (accused No.2). These facts clearly speaks that the Investigating Officer has not conducted thorough investigation and has screened some accused persons by colluding with other accused persons. It is contended that though accused No.2 was absconding for several months before his arrest, but his CDRs. on the day of incident i.e., on 17.10.2020 from 02:00 p.m. till incident, is not placed on record. However, only the CDR up to 02:00 p.m. is collected, which is a part of the charge sheet. Accused No.2 was arrested on 26.08.2022 by tracking his mobile location No.9148860442, but his CDRs. were not collected. Therefore, accused No.2’s CDR serial numbers are missing and accused No.6’s tower location is missing, all accused CDRs. are not order wise and serial wise. Hence, the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer is incomplete. Thus, prayed to quash the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Trial Court and to issue writ of mandamus, directing respondent No.1 – the Police Officer to conduct further investigation in the matter on the basis of the CDRs. of accused and others in accordance with law and submit further report in the matter. 14. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that the petitioner challenged the order of Trial Court, hence, the petitioner ought to have challenged the impugned order in a revision and hence, writ cannot lie. of accused and others in accordance with law and submit further report in the matter. 14. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that the petitioner challenged the order of Trial Court, hence, the petitioner ought to have challenged the impugned order in a revision and hence, writ cannot lie. Further, in exceptional circumstances, the petitioner can seek remedy under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, he prayed to dispose the petition in accordance with law. 15. Sri. R.H. Angadi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 contended that the Trial Court framed charges against the accused persons and the trial has come to an end. At this juncture, the petitioner has filed protest petition, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the petition. Hence, the counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition. 16. Perused the materials available on record. The entire grievance of the petitioner – complainant revolves around the charge sheet and irregularities in CDR reports filed by the Investigating Officer and non-production of 65B certificate. 17. In this case, the Investigating Officer had investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 initially. Later, as per the statement of the petitioner, accused Nos.5 to 7 have been included. According to the petitioner, he has furnished CDRs. of the accused persons and as per CDRs. some more accused are involved in this case, but the Investigating Officer has not properly perused the CDRs. and investigation about its contents with reference to the grievance of the petitioner. From perusal of the CDRs., it appears that some columns of the report are kept blank and some columns are edited / deleted etc. Some CDR serial numbers are missing and some mobile number tower locations are also missing. It shows that the CDRs. submitted by the Investigating Officer are not order wise and serial wise. It shows that the CDR appears to be incomplete, hence, a proper and fair investigation is to be done in this regard. Call Detail Records (CDRs.) are crucial in legal proceedings, particularly in criminal investigations, because they provide a detailed record of communication activity, including calls, texts, and internet usage, which can be used as evidence. CDRs. help establish timelines of events, track locations and reveal communication patterns, making them valuable for building cases or exonerating suspects. CDRs. Call Detail Records (CDRs.) are crucial in legal proceedings, particularly in criminal investigations, because they provide a detailed record of communication activity, including calls, texts, and internet usage, which can be used as evidence. CDRs. help establish timelines of events, track locations and reveal communication patterns, making them valuable for building cases or exonerating suspects. CDRs. show who communicated with whom, when, and for how long, allowing investigators to map out communication networks and identify potential connections between individuals. This can be crucial for proving relationships, establishing motives, or uncovering conspiracy theories related to a crime. The cell phones, when used, leave digital foot prints and CDRs. can be used to track the general location of a cell phone user based on the cell towers used for calls and data connections. By analyzing CDRs., investigators can create a chronological timeline of a person’s movements and communications, which can be crucial in criminal investigations and Court proceedings. This timeline can help establish alibis, corroborate witness statements, or identified inconsistencies in a suspect’s account of events. CDRs. are generally admissible in Court as electronic evidence and Section 65B certificate is required to validate the electronic records of CDRs. It is also essential to ensure the CDRs. are obtained legally, usually through a Court order or law enforcement request. The specialized forensic tools can be used to analyze CDRs., potentially recovering deleted data or uncovering hidden information within the records. This can be helpful in complex cases, where digital evidence is critical. 18. Whereas in the instant case, the learned Trial Court did not exercise any powers to consider the grievance and the inaction of Investigating Officer, insofar as investigation as to CDRs. data. 19. The constitutional Courts may order further investigation / reinvestigation / de novo investigation even after the charge sheet is filed and the charges are framed. If the submission on behalf of the accused and even as observed by the High Court that once the charge sheet is filed and the charges are framed, there may not be any order for further investigation / reinvestigation / de novo investigation is accepted, in that case, the accused may see to it that the charges are framed to avoid any fair investigation / fair trial. It would lead to travesty of justice 20. It would lead to travesty of justice 20. As observed and held by the Supreme Court in the certain decisions, the victim has a fundamental right of fair investigation and fair trial. Therefore, mere filing of the charge sheet and framing of the charges cannot be an impediment in ordering further investigation / reinvestigation / de novo investigation, if the facts so warrant. 21. The endeavour of the Court should be to have the fair investigation and fair trial only. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, a case is made out for further investigation and the State agency may be permitted to conduct a further investigation and to bring on record the further material, which may be in the furtherance of fair investigation and fair trial. 22. Article 21 of the Constitution demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the Police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases midway through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. 23. In the present case, respondent No.1 initially filed a charge sheet against only four persons. Subsequently, based on the statement of the injured – petitioner dated 08.01.2021, accused Nos.5 to 7 were also charge sheeted. Thereafter, the petitioner and his brother addressed communications to respondent Nos.2 and 3, alleging that the Investigating Officer was deliberately shielding certain individuals by failing to arrest accused No.2 and by not conducting a proper investigation. 24. Further, the Investigating Officer has not furnished 65B certificate as required under law. If such certificate is not furnished, it would defeat the purpose of securing digital evidence in the case. 25. Whereas, the learned Sessions Judge without perusing these factual and legal aspects of the matter, has rejected the protest petition. The protest petition contend specific allegation with documentary support (CDRs., correspondence, complaints) pointing towards an involvement of additional accused, which the investigation did not address properly. 25. Whereas, the learned Sessions Judge without perusing these factual and legal aspects of the matter, has rejected the protest petition. The protest petition contend specific allegation with documentary support (CDRs., correspondence, complaints) pointing towards an involvement of additional accused, which the investigation did not address properly. The acceptance of ‘B’ report appears to be mechanical, especially in the light of gaps in CDRs., lack of 65B certificates, unexplained mobile communications around the time of offence and failure to gather or analyze key evidence. 26. In the instant case, the petitioner has shown a prima facie case of defective investigation and failure to stay the trial proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice. Hence, rejection of the protest petition is not in accordance with law. Thus, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge dated 13.11.2024 rejecting protest petition is liable to be quashed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (sitting at Gangavathi) in S.C. No.89/2021 is hereby quashed. iii. Respondent No.1 is directed to conduct a further investigation into the matter based on the Call Detail Records (CDRs.) of the accused and others, in accordance with the law, and to submit a report to the Trial Court within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, in light of the observations made above. If supplementary report is submitted by the Investigating Officer, which may be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with law and on its on merits and the accused be tried accordingly and in accordance with law and on merits. iv. Soon after institution of supplementary report by the Investigating Officer, the Trial Court is hereby directed to proceed with the trial expeditiously. v. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.