Karnataka High Court
Smt. Manjula vs D A Srinivas on 14 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.22218 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.3923 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.16266 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.22200 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO.25802 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
IN WP NO.22218/2025:
BETWEEN:
SRI. D. A. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE D.K. ADIKESAVALU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O NO.7/21, 1ST CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
R.M.V. EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 080.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI C. H. JADAV, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI BASAVARAJU H. N., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU,
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. SMT. MANJULA. M
W/O LATE RAGHUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5034 TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
APTS 5B ROAD, EPIP AREA,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
BENGALURU-560066.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. S.P.P., FOR R1;
SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA (BNSS), 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.453/2025 AT ANNEXURE-A ARISING OUT OF PCR
NO.353/2025 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 WHITEFIELD
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DATED 30.06.2025 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 318(4), 336(3),
351(3), 352, 343 AND 340(2) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITA (BNS), 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ACJM) BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SO FAR PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED. ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT
TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN PCR
NO.353/2025 DATED 17.04.2025 FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE (ACJM) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AT
ANNEXURE-C.
IN WP NO. 3923/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAJA BAGMANE
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O CHANDREGOWDA,
KATHA NO.66/1-3, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 093.
2. SRI. ADITHYA BAGMANE
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O RAJA BAGAMANE,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
KATHA NO.66/1-3, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 093.
3. NAGAMANI RAJA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/O RAJA BAGMANE,
KATHA NO.66/1-3, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 093.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KIRAN J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION,
REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. SMT. MANJULA M
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O LATE RAGHUNATH,
R/AT NO.5034 TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
APTS 5B ROAD EPIP
BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA-560048.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA (BNSS), 2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
QUASH PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 27/01/2025, BEARING
PCR NO.96/2025, PENDING BEFORE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT IN SO FAR PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED. (ANNEXURE-A). B) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION TO
QUASH THE FIR BEARING CRIME NO.0052/2025 DATED
28.01.2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN ON
THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO
FAR PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-B). ISSUE
A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED IN PCR NO.0096/2025 ALONG WITH ORDER
DATED 27.01.2025 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON THE
FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, IN SO
FAR PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-C).
IN WP NO.16266/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MANJULA
W/O LATE K. RAGHUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.5034,
545 ROAD, EPIP ZONE,
TOTAL ENVIRONMENT APARTMENT,
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU-560066.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. D A SRINIVAS
S/O LATE D.K ADIKESHAVALU,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
R/AT NO.7/21, 1ST CROSS,
9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION,
BENGALURU-560080.
2. BAGMANE LUMINARY LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REPRESENTED UNDER LIMITED LIABILITY
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008
5TH FLOOR, B BLOCK, BAGMANE LAUREL,
BAGMANE TECH PARK, CV RAMAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE NORTH KARNATAKA-560093.
3. SRI. RAJA BAGMANE
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O CHANDREGOWDA,
KATHA NO.66/1-3, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 093.
4. SRI. ADITHYA BAGMANE
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O RAJA BANGMANE,
KATHA NO.66/1-3, BYRASANDRA VILLAGE,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 093.
5. NAGAMANI RAJA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O CHANDREGOWDA, KATHA NO.66/1-3,
BYRASANDRA VILLAGE,
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560 093.
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE-560066,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTION,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.
7. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
NEW DELHI OFFICE AT 5-B, 6TH FLOOR,
CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM MARG,
NEW DELHI, DELHI-110003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. H. JADAV, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI BASAVARAJU H. N., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KIRAN J., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5;
SRI B. N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP FOR R6;
SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA (BNSS), 2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER
OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.5- CENTRAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI, OR ANY OTHER
INDEPENDENT AGENCY TO TAKE OVER AND CONDUCT A
FRESH, INDEPENDENT AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION IN
FIR BEARING CRIME NO.52/2025 REGISTERED AT
WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR
OFFENCES UNDER THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
AND SUBMIT A REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW VIDE
ANNEXURE-B.
IN WP NO.22200/2025:
BETWEEN:
SRI D.A. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE D.K. ADIKESAVALU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O NO.7/21, 1ST CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
R.M.V. EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 080.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI C. H. JADAV, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI BASAVARAJU H. N., ADVOCATE)
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WHITEFIELD P.S.,
WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. SMT. MANJULA. M
W/O LATE RAGHUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5034, TOTAL ENVIRONMENT,
APTS 5B ROAD, EPIP, BENGALURU-560066.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B. N. JAGADEESH, ADDL. S.P.P. FOR R1;
SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA (BNS), 2023 PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE F.I.R.
BEARING CRIME NO.52/2025 AT ANNEXURE-A ARISING
OUT OF PCR NO.96/2025, REGISTERED BY WHITEFIELD
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 318(4), 336(3), 340(2),
343, 351(3), 352 AND 61 OF THE BNS, 2023, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE (ACJM, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU IN SO FAR PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. B)
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.96/2025 AT
ANNEXURE-B DATED 25-01-2025 FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SO FAR PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED AT ANNEXURE-C.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
IN WP NO.25802/2025:
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANJULA
W/O LATE K. RAGHUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.5034,
545 ROAD, EPIP ZONE,
TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
APARTMENT, WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU-560066
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DA SRINIVAS
S/O LATE D.K. ADIKESHAVALU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.7/21, 1ST CROSS,
9TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION,
BENGALURU-560080.
2. BAGMANE LUMLINARY LLP
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REGISTERED UNDER LIMITED LIABILITY
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008
HAVING OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR,
B BLOCK, BHAGAMANE LAUREL,
BHAGAMANE TECH PARK,
CV RAMAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU NORTH,
KARNATAKA-560093
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
3. SRI ADITHYA BAGMANE
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O RAJA BANGMANE,
KATHA NO.66/1-3,
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
BYRASANDRA VILLAGE,
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560093.
4. SRI RAJA BAGMANE
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O CHANDREGOWDA,
KATHA NO.66/1-3,
BYRASANDRA VILLAGE,
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560093.
5. NAGAMANI RAJA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O CHANDREGOWDA,
KATHA NO.66/1-3,
BYRASANDRA VILLAGE,
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560093.
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION
BANGALORE-560096
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
7. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
NEW DELHI OFFICE AT 5-B,
6TH FLOOR, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM MARG,
NEW DELHI, DELHI-110003.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C. H. JADAV, SR. ADVOCATE A/W
SRI BASAVARAJU H N., ADVOCATE)
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA
SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR
ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION,
DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.7 CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI, OR ANY OTHER INDEPENDENT
AGENCY TO TAKE OVER AND CONDUCT INDEPENDENT, AND
IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION IN FIR BEARING CRIME
NO.453/2025 REGISTERED AT WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
61, 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 343, 351(3), AND 352 OF
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 AND SUBMIT A REPORT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS 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
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
These writ petitions, though filed separately, are
interconnected and are therefore taken up together for
final disposal.
2. W.P. No.22218/2025 is filed by Accused No.1
seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.453/2025.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
3. W.P. No.3923/2025 is filed by Accused Nos.2 to
4, who are subsequent purchasers of the disputed lands,
seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.52/2025.
4. W.P. No.16266/2025 is filed by the second
respondent/de facto complainant seeking transfer of
investigation in Crime No.52/2025 to the Central Bureau
of Investigation (CBI).
5. BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
The genesis of the present batch of petitions can be
traced to the death of one K. Raghunath, who allegedly
died by suicide on 04.05.2019 in a guest house. The said
Raghunath was the husband of Smt. Manjula, the second
respondent herein.
6. Accused No.1 asserts that the deceased had
executed a registered will dated 20.04.2018, registered on
24.04.2019, bequeathing his immovable properties in
favour of Accused No.1. It is further contended that
Accused No.1 was a Director in entities of the D.A.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
Adikeshavalu Group, engaged in real-estate ventures, and
that due to statutory restrictions on agricultural land
purchase, certain acquisitions were routed in the name of
the deceased under several Memoranda of Understanding
dated 17.05.2005.
SEQUENCE OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS:
7. Upon the demise of K. Raghunath, his widow
lodged multiple complaints alleging forgery and fabrication
of the will and related documents. The following table
presents the details of the FIRs and related proceedings:
FIR/ Offences Prayer Challenged in
Chargesheet and by
No. whom/stage
Crime IPC 34, 120B, 467, 468, 421, 201, Investigate the CBI investigation
No.89/2020 474,302,464,471 death of directed.
Raghunath
To look into the death of the (By widow of
deceased Raghunath)
Crime IPC 34, 120B, 468, 465, 471, 420 To look into CBI investigation
No.148/2020 Fabrication of directed.
Forgery of will dated 20.04.2018 will and title
and fabrication of title documents. documents (By son of
Raghunath)
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
Crime IPC 420, 255, 257, 259, 256, Look into the CBI investigation
No.7/2021 258,260 use of directed.
counterfeit
Use of counterfeit stamp papers stamp papers (By Inspector
and forged documents for illegal and forged General of
property transfer. documents for registration and
illegal property Commissioner
transfer. Stamps)
Crime BNS 318, 336, 340, 343, 351, Quashing of W.P.
No.52/2025 352,61 FIR No.3923/2025
Cheating, Forgery, Impersonation, By Accused no.2
fabrication of revenue records to 4
Crime No. BNS 318,336,340,343,351,352,61 Quashing of W.P. No.
52/2025 FIR 22200/2025
Cheating, Forgery, Impersonation,
fabrication of revenue records By Accused No.1
Crime BNS 318,336,340,343,351,352,61 Fresh W.P. No.
No.52/2025 Investigation 16266/2025
Cheating, Forgery, Impersonation, by unbiased
fabrication of revenue records agency (By
complainant)
Crime No. BNS 318,336,340,343,351,352,61 Fresh W.P.
453/2025 Investigation No.25802/2025
Cheating, Forgery, Impersonation, by unbiased
fabrication of revenue records agency (By
complainant)
Crime No. BNS Quashing of W.P.
453/2025 318,336,340,343,351,352,61 FIR No.22218/2025
Cheating, Forgery, Impersonation, (By Accused
fabrication of revenue records No.1)
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
EARLIER COURT ORDERS & CBI INVESTIGATION:
8. This Court in W.P. No.4333/2021 (order dated
28.03.2021) had permitted constitution of a Special
Investigation Team (SIT). Subsequently, on dissatisfaction
with progress, the de facto complainant approached this
Court again in W.P. No.7784/2022, resulting in an order
dated 03.09.2022 directing transfer of investigation in
Crime Nos.89/2020, 148/2020 and 7/2021 to the CBI.
9. Aggrieved, Accused No.1 and others approached
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos.10449/2022 and
10515/2022. The Apex Court, affirming the order of this
Court, directed as follows:
"18. Reverting back to the facts of the
present case, the deceased was closely
associated with DKA, a member of Parliament
and Chairman of Temple Sri Venkateswara
Swamy Temple (Tirumala Tirupathi
Devasthanam). The deceased, a close
confidant of DKA, was a successful realtor and
had huge assets in and around Bangalore. His
mysterious death was preceded by execution
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
of two different Wills, one in favour of his
wife/respondent no. 1 and the other in favour
of respondent No. 12 which was registered
after his controversial death. There are civil
proceedings relating to mutation and
declaration of title as well as the allegations
concerning forgery of stamp papers. The
learned Magistrate while directing further
investigation and the High Court, under the
impugned order, has highlighted the glaring
defects in the investigation which we have
avoided to reiterate so that it does not
influence the CBI investigation. However, the
fact remains that the truth surrendering the
death of K. Raghunath needs to be settled
after a complete and fair investigation by the
CBI which, in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, has rightly been directed by
the High Court.
19. We, accordingly, affirm the order of
the High Court and dismiss the appeals. The
CBI shall conduct the investigation within a
period of 08 months and the State of
Karnataka shall render all possible assistance
to the CBI to make a fair investigation into the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
crime. The entire papers shall be handed over
by the concerned police to the CBI within 15
days. If the CBI proceeds to file chargesheet,
the same shall be submitted before the
jurisdictional CBI Court in the State of
Karnataka."
10. Thus, the CBI investigation presently covers the
alleged murder, forgery of wills, antedated stamp papers,
and related transactions forming the foundational chain of
title.
CIVIL LITIGATION & HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT
INTERIM STAY:
11. Parallelly, Accused No.1 instituted O.S.
No.246/2020 seeking declaration of title based on the will
dated 20.04.2018. The plaint was rejected under Order VII
Rule 11(a)&(d) CPC by the Trial Court on 30.10.2023.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
12. This Court, in RFA No.2216/2023, by order
dated 22.02.2024, set aside the rejection and restored the
suit. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in SLP (C)
No.9724/2024, by order dated 08.04.2025, stayed the
operation of the High Court's restoration order. Thus, the
civil dispute regarding the will and ownership of properties
is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
SUBSEQUENT ALIENATION AND NEW FIRs:
13. While the appeal order in RFA No.2216/2023
stood operative, Accused No.1 executed registered sale
deeds dated 14.11.2024 alienating the following properties
to Accused Nos.2-4:
i. Sy.No.92/6 - 36 guntas
ii. Sy.No.92/5A - 1 acre 8 guntas
14. The subsequent purchasers claim to be bona
fide purchasers for value, having verified the registered
will, revenue records, and encumbrance certificates before
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
purchase. It is these alienations which led to registration
of Crime No.52/2025 and Crime No.453/2025 alleging
cheating, forgery, impersonation, and fabrication of
revenue records.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS:
Arguments of A1 (W.P. No.22218/2025):
15. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. C.H. Jadav
submitted that the de facto complainant and her son have
already set the criminal law in motion by lodging
complaints that culminated in Crime Nos.89/2020,
148/2020, and 7/2021 -- all of which are under CBI
investigation.
16. Therefore, registration of fresh FIRs on identical
facts amounts to misuse of police machinery and
multiplicity of proceedings, contrary to law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala
(2001) 6 SCC 181.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
17. He contended that the alienations effected by
Accused No.1 were during pendency of civil proceedings
and at a time when there was no injunction or restraint
order. At best, the transactions would remain subject to
the outcome of pending proceedings before the Supreme
Court, and do not constitute criminality.
Arguments of A2-A4 (W.P. No.3923/2025):
18. Learned Counsel appearing for accused Nos.2 to
4, has argued that the petitioners are subsequent
purchasers for valuable consideration after due diligence.
They are not connected to any alleged murder, forgery, or
conspiracy. Even if the allegations are accepted at face
value, no ingredients of forgery, cheating, or
impersonation are made out against them.
19. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings in
Crime No.52/2025 is a clear abuse of process of law. To
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
substantiate his arguments learned counsel for the
petitioners has relied on the following judgments:
1. Sardool Singh and Anr v. Smt. Nasib Kaur 1987
(Supp) SCC 146.
2. M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana and Anr-
(2019) 10 SCC 373.
3. Urmila Devi and Ors v. Balram and Anr-2025
INSC 915- Crl. Appl.No. 3300 of 2025.
4. Rikhab Birani & anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and anr (2025 INSC 512).
5. Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The state of
Maharashtra & ors (2015 INSC 139).
Arguments of De facto Complainant (W.P.
No.16266/2025):
20. The learned Senior counsel for the second
respondent contends that the transactions of 2024 are
intrinsically connected to the original conspiracy and hence
the new crimes must also be handed over to the CBI to
ensure a comprehensive probe.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
21. It is further submitted that Accused No.1 is an
influential person with political links, and fair investigation
cannot be expected at the hands of local police. To
substantiate his arguments learned counsel for the
complainant has relied on the following judgments:
1. State of West Bengal and Ors v. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
and Ors-(2010) 3 SCC 571.
2. Sri. C. N. Govindaraju and anr v. State of
Karnataka and anr (WP.No.30657/2024).
3. Ramachandraiah & anr v. M. Manjula & ors
2025 INSC 556
22. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner/accused No.1, counsel appearing for
petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 and learned Senior Counsel
appearing for second respondent. The following points
would arise for consideration:
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
i. Whether registration of Crime Nos.52/2025 and
453/2025 constitutes a fresh cause of action
and warrants investigation by the CBI ?
ii. Whether subsequent alienations effected by
Accused No.1 during pendency of civil
proceedings amount to new an offence of
cheating or forgery warranting fresh criminal
investigation?
iii. Whether the request to entrust Crime
Nos.52/2025 and 453/2025 to the CBI merits
acceptance, particularly in view of the
Honourable Supreme Court's staying of High
court's order restoring plaint on file?
iv. Whether proceedings pending in Crime
Nos.52/2025 and 453/2025 are liable to be
quashed?
Findings on Point Nos (i) and (ii)- Multiplicity of
FIRs and Civil Nature of Transactions:
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
23. This Court finds substance in the submissions
advanced by learned Senior counsel appearing for accused
No.1 and learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.2 to
4. The core allegations regarding forgery of the will, MOUs,
and title documents already form the subject of CBI
investigation pursuant to orders in W.P. No.7784/2022
and the Supreme Court's confirmation in SLP
Nos.10449/2022 & 10515/2022.
24. The new FIRs (Crime Nos.52/2025 & 453/2025)
merely arise out of subsequent sale transactions flowing
from the same chain of title. The subject properties are
those covered under the will of 2018, is sub-judice before
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and is subject matter of
investigation by CBI.
25. Where a civil title dispute is pending
adjudication before the highest court, any transfer
pendente lite would, at best, attract the doctrine of lis
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
pendens (Section 52, TPA), and the purchasers' rights
remain subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings. It
does not, however, give rise to fresh criminal liability,
particularly where the foundational allegation of forgery is
already being probed by the CBI. It becomes necessary to
advert to the comprehensive suit filed by accused No.1 in
OS No.246/2020. The prayer in plaint is extracted which
reads as under:
" WHEREFORE, the plaintiff most respectfully
prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:-
a) Grant the decree of declaration, declaring that the
plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit
schedule properties in terms of the will dated 20-4-
2018 executed by deceased K Raghunath and
subsequently got registered by executor vide
Document No.BYP-3-00098/2019-20,in book No.III
and stored in CD No. BYPD529, dated 31-12-2019 in
the file of Senior Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura,
Bengaluru.;
b) Grant the decree of declaration, declaring that the
mistakes crepted in schedule of the will dated 20-4-
2018 executed by K Raghunath subsequently got
registered by executor vide Document No. BYP-3-
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
00098/2019-20,in book No.III and stored in CD No.
BYPD529, dated 31-12-2019 in the file of Senior
Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru and
permitted to be rectified said will as sought for herein
below:
(i) In the schedule of Will in Item A Land comprising
in Sy.No.274/1 of Avathi Village, Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru rural district, measuring 0-23 guntas to be
inserted as one of the item of the property;
(ii) In the schedule of Will at Sl No.01 of Item-A
extent of the land comprising in Sy. No.268, to be
rectified as 0-25 guntas instead of lacre-01guntas.
(iii) In the schedule of Will at Sl No.1 of Item-A Land
in Sy.No.267 of Avathi Village measuring 2 acre 06
guntas to be rectified as 2 acre 23 guntas;
(iv) In the schedule of Will at Sl No.2 of Item-A the
land bearing Sy.No.28/4 measuring 0-27 was shown
as Avathi Village, same has to be corrected by
showing the name of the village Dasarahalli as
against Avathi;
(v) In the schedule of will at Sl No.6 of Item-A
Instead of Land in Sy.No.271/1 measuring 0-36
guntas of Avathi Village, Devanahalli Taluk, shown as
Sy.No.272/1 by mistake;
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
(vi) In schedule of Will at Sl No.03, Item No.4 of
Item-B the property shown by an extent of 3.00
acres of Bullahalli
village, Devanahalli Taluk Sy.No. to be add as
Sy.No.121.
(vii) In the schedule of Will at Sl No.2 of Item-C
measurement has to be rectified as of 0-09 guntas in
instead 0.14 guntas;
c) Grant the decree of perpetual injunction
restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or
anybody claiming under them permanently from
interfering with the lawful and peaceful possession of
the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties;
d) Pass such other order or decree or direction as
this Hon'ble Court deem it fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case and decree the suit as
prayed for with costs, in the ends of justice and
equity."
26. Records also reveal that Hon'ble Supreme Court
has stayed the order passed by this Court in RFA
No.2216/2023, wherein this Court reversed the order of
the court of first instance rejecting plaint. This court order
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
in above said appeal restored the plaint filed in OS
No.246/2020, but however the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
stayed the order of this Court restoring plaint on file and
therefore matter completely seized before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
staying the order of restoration of plaint is relevant and
the same is extracted, which reads as under:
"1. Issue notice.
2. In addition, dasti service is permitted.
3. In the meanwhile, the restored
proceedings shall be kept on hold until
further orders."
27. Hence, the registration of fresh FIRs on identical
facts constitutes abuse of process and is barred by the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony
v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181, which holds that
once an FIR has been registered and investigation
commenced on a particular transaction, a second FIR on
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
the same facts is impermissible. Accordingly, point Nos.(i)
and (ii) are answered in the 'Negative'.
Finding on Point No. (iii)- CBI Transfer of
Subsequent FIRs:
28. The CBI's jurisdiction is confined to the offences
and facts entrusted to it by judicial order namely, the
death of K. Raghunath and the alleged fabrication of the
will and MOUs.
29. It is trite that a direction for transfer of
investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary measure, to be
invoked sparingly, cautiously and only to secure the ends
of justice in exceptional situations where the ordinary
process is demonstrably inadequate. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court has consistently held that the power under Articles
32/226 to entrust investigation to the CBI is not to be
exercised as a matter of routine.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
30. It is now well settled that referral of
investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation
constitutes an extraordinary jurisdictional recourse and not
an ordinary incident of judicial review. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Committee
for Protection of Democratic Rights [(2010) 3 SCC
571, paras 68-70] held in unmistakable terms that
though constitutional courts possess the power under
Articles 32 and 226 to direct such transfer, the same must
be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional
circumstances, where the Court finds that the normal
investigative process has been subverted or rendered
ineffective. The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that
such entrustment is an exception to the federal scheme,
and that routine transfers would erode the autonomy of
the State police system. The principle was further
crystallized in K.V. Rajendran v. CBI [(2013) 12 SCC
480, paras 13-15], where the Hon'ble Supreme Court
emphasised that a CBI probe may be directed only in rare
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
and exceptional cases involving either (i) a reasonable
apprehension of bias or lack of credibility in the local
investigation, or (ii) a complex or high-level conspiracy
having inter-State ramifications, such that only a central
agency can effectively investigate. In Pooja Pal v. Union
of India [(2016) 3 SCC 135, paras 82-84], the
Hon'ble Apex Court explained that the test is whether the
facts disclose compelling circumstances that justify
deviation from the ordinary investigative process, the
object being to preserve public confidence in the fairness
of inquiry rather than to satisfy an individual litigant.
Similarly, in Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural
Engineering Services, U.P. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya
[(2002) 5 SCC 521, paras 5-7], the Hon'ble Supreme
Court cautioned that mere allegations or suspicions
against the State police are insufficient; there must be
substantive material showing a credible failure or collusion
before such extraordinary direction can issue.
- 31 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
31. Applying these principles to the case at hand,
this Court finds no circumstance warranting further
expansion of the CBI's mandate. The foundational
allegations namely, the alleged murder of K. Raghunath,
the Will dated 20.04.2018, and the four MOUs dated
17.05.2005 have already been entrusted to and are under
active investigation by the CBI pursuant to orders passed
by this Court in W.P. No. 7784/2022, duly affirmed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 10449/2022 and
10515/2022. The present complaints in Crime Nos.
52/2025 and 453/2025 merely concern subsequent
alienations effected by Accused No. 1 during pendency of
civil proceedings, which are incidental civil consequences
of the disputed Will and form part of a chain already under
scrutiny. No fresh material, systemic bias, or investigative
failure has been demonstrated so as to attract the "rare
and exceptional" threshold contemplated in the above
authorities. Once the central agency is seized of the core
allegations and the civil title dispute is sub-judice before
- 32 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is neither necessity nor
justification to multiply investigative forums.
Consequently, the prayer to further extend the CBI
investigation to cover the later alienations must fail, being
inconsistent with the settled law governing such
extraordinary referrals.
32. The subsequent alienations by Accused No.1 in
November, 2024 were effected after this Court restored
the suit in RFA No.2216/2023 (later stayed by the
Supreme Court). Since the Hon'ble Apex Court is seized of
the civil lis concerning ownership, any direction to extend
CBI investigation into these post-litigation transactions
would amount to indirect interference with proceedings
pending before the Supreme Court.
33. Moreover, whether the alienations are void or
valid pendente lite is a civil consequence, not a criminal
one. The question of entrusting such transactions to CBI
does not arise when the underlying allegations of forgery
- 33 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
are already being investigated by CBI; and the civil effect
of the alienations is within the Supreme Court's domain.
Accordingly, the prayer for CBI transfer in W.P.
No.16266/2025 deserves rejection. For the foregoing
reasons, point No.(iii) is answered in the 'Negative'.
Finding on point No. (iv):
34. The fulcrum of the entire dispute concerns the
alleged murder of Sri K. Raghunath, the genuineness of
the Will dated 20.04.2018, and the alleged fabrication of
four MOUs dated 17.05.2005.
35. These very allegations form the subject-matter
of investigation entrusted to the Central Bureau of
Investigation pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.
No. 7784/2022, which have been affirmed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 10449/2022 and 10515/2022.
36. The CBI has thus been authorised to investigate
the core transaction from which all incidental
- 34 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
consequences including later transfers and alienations
flow. Once the central agency is seized of the principal
allegations and the investigation is at an advanced stage,
permitting the State police to independently examine the
very same allegations through parallel FIRs amounts to
splitting up a single cause of action into multiple criminal
proceedings, which is impermissible in law.
37. This Court is of the considered opinion that the
continuation of criminal proceedings in Crime Nos.52/2025
and 453/2025 cannot be sustained in law, as the very
foundation of the allegations forming the basis for
registration of these FIRs is already the subject matter of
a comprehensive investigation being conducted by the
Central Bureau of Investigation pursuant to the orders
passed in W.P. No.7784/2022, which orders have been
affirmed in unequivocal terms by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in SLP Nos.10449/2022 and 10515/2022. The
allegations sought to be projected in the present FIRs do
not disclose any fresh act of deceit, forgery or
- 35 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
impersonation; rather, they arise solely as a consequence
of subsequent alienations effected by Accused No.1 on
14.11.2024, which in turn trace their origin entirely to the
very Will dated 20.04.2018 and the MOUs dated
17.05.2005 that are already under the scrutiny of the CBI.
Once the central agency has been entrusted with
examining the genuineness of the Will and MOUs, any
attempt to initiate parallel or overlapping investigative
processes before the jurisdictional police in respect of
subsequent transactions flowing from the same chain of
title would inevitably result in multiplicity of proceedings,
conflicting investigative outcomes, and a clear abuse of
the criminal justice machinery. The law declared by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala
(2001) 6 SCC 181 squarely prohibits the registration of
successive FIRs premised on the same set of facts or
different versions of the same allegations, and the present
FIRs, on a plain reading, amount to an impermissible
- 36 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
second attempt to reopen an issue already entrusted to an
investigating agency by judicial order.
38. Viewed from another angle, the alienations
executed by Accused No.1 are transactions pendente-lite,
effected during the pendency of civil proceedings wherein
the validity of the Will and the competing claims of title
are in issue. These alienations attract, at best, the doctrine
of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property
Act, 1882, by which any transfer made during litigation
remains subject to the final outcome of such proceedings.
The legal effect of such transfers is civil in character and
falls squarely within the province of the civil court; such
transfers do not, by themselves, constitute the offences of
cheating, forgery or impersonation. The question whether
these alienations are void, voidable, or otherwise affected
by pendency of the suit is an adjudicatory matter now
lying exclusively before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which
is seized of the civil lis after the restoration of the plaint in
RFA No.2216/2023. Any parallel criminal investigation into
- 37 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
the implications of these alienations would amount to
indirect interference with proceedings pending before the
Apex Court and would undermine the hierarchical
discipline that the law insists upon when the highest
constitutional forum is seized of the substantive dispute.
39. Furthermore, this Court finds that no new
material or circumstance has been placed on record to
suggest that any independent criminality transpired in
2024 that is distinct from the alleged fabrication of the Will
and MOUs already being investigated by the CBI. The
subsequent transactions are merely consequences of the
same disputed title; therefore, they cannot furnish a fresh
cause of action to invoke the criminal law once again.
Allowing the police to proceed with the investigation in
Crime Nos.52/2025 and 453/2025 would create two
parallel streams of investigation one by the CBI on the
core allegations and another by the State police on the
derivative civil consequences an outcome that is neither
legally permissible nor practically tenable. The appropriate
- 38 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
and lawful course is to permit the CBI to complete its
mandate with respect to the genuineness of the
testamentary documents, after which the civil rights of the
parties will be determined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court;
until then, any superadded criminal investigation only
serves to multiply proceedings and prejudice the fair
resolution of the dispute.
40. In this background, the present FIRs, being
nothing but a restatement of allegations already in issue
and already examined by the CBI, amount to an abuse of
process and cannot be allowed to continue. The
foundational dispute namely, the alleged forgery of the
Will and MOUs is firmly within the investigative domain of
the CBI. The civil consequences of subsequent transfers
are pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. The criminal proceedings in Crime Nos.52/2025 and
453/2025 are therefore liable to be quashed in order to
prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting
findings, and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
- 39 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
41. A further significant aspect that cannot be
overlooked is that the purchasers arrayed as Accused
Nos.2 to 4 are, in law, pendente-lite purchasers, having
derived their rights through Accused No.1, who claims
under the Will of late K. Raghunath. Their purchase is not
independent, nor is it based on any fraudulent
misrepresentation made by themselves to the complainant
or any authority. They merely stand in the shoes of their
vendor, and their rights rise or fall with the title of Accused
No.1, whose suit seeking declaration of title on the basis of
the very Will of Raghunath is now squarely pending
consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
No.9724/2024. When the root of title is under judicial
examination before the highest court, a transferee
pendente lite cannot be fastened with criminal liability for
cheating or forgery when they have not fabricated any
document, nor have they projected themselves as deriving
title through the complainant or the deceased Raghunath.
Their title is entirely derivative and flows solely from
- 40 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
Accused No.1. The mere act of purchasing property during
pendency of litigation, even with notice of the dispute,
does not constitute the offences of cheating,
impersonation, or forgery under the Penal Code. At best,
their rights remain subject to the outcome of the civil
proceedings, as mandated by Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act. To criminally prosecute pendente lite
purchasers for acts that are purely civil consequences of a
disputed title would be wholly unwarranted and would
convert a civil dispute pending before the Hon'ble Apex
Court into a collateral criminal proceeding. Such a course
is inconsistent with settled jurisprudence and would
amount to misuse of the criminal process.
42. In view of the foregoing discussion, and having
regard to the fact that the foundational allegations
pertaining to the alleged fabrication of the Will dated
20.04.2018 and the MOUs dated 17.05.2005 are already
under investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation
pursuant to the orders passed in W.P. No.7784/2022
- 41 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
(affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
Nos.10449/2022 & 10515/2022), and further noting that
the civil dispute concerning declaration of title under the
said Will is presently seized of by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in SLP No.9724/2024. For the foregoing reasons, this
Court proceeds to answer point No.(iv) in the
'affirmative'.
43. CONCLUSION:
i. The continuation of investigation in Crime
Nos.52/2025 and 453/2025, in so far as it
pertains to alleged cheating, forgery, or
impersonation arising from the sale
transactions dated 14.11.2024, amounts to
multiplicity of proceedings and abuse of
process.
ii. The foundation of the dispute namely, the
alleged forgery of the will and MOUs is
already under CBI investigation, and the
- 42 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
civil title dispute is pending before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
iii. The alienations by Accused No.1 were
executed when no restraining order
existed, and their validity is subject to the
Supreme Court's decision in the pending
matter.
iv. Consequently, there exists no justification
to extend CBI investigation to the
subsequent transactions.
44. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i) W.P. No.22218/2025 and W.P No.22200/2025 filed by Accused No.1, and W.P. No.3923/2025, filed by Accused Nos.2 to 4, are hereby allowed.
- 43 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833
WP No. 22218 of 2025
C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025
WP No. 16266 of 2025
HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS
ii) In consequence, the proceedings in Crime
No.453/2025 and Crime No.52/2025,
pending before the jurisdictional police, and arising out of subsequent alienations that are derivative of the very title now under examination by the CBI and sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, are hereby quashed.
iii) W.P. No.16266/2025 and W.P No.25802/2025 filed by the de facto complainant seeking further transfer or expansion of investigation to the CBI, is dismissed, it being unnecessary and impermissible to widen the scope of investigation when the core allegations are already within the mandate of the CBI and the civil rights of the parties are concurrently under adjudication before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.9724/2024
- 44 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46833 WP No. 22218 of 2025 C/W WP No. 3923 of 2025 WP No. 16266 of 2025 HC-KAR AND 2 OTHERS and further this Court has already quashed the proceedings in Crime Nos.453/2025 and 52/2025.
iv) All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE RSP List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3 CT:SI