Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs C P Yogeshwara on 4 February, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                    -1-
                                                                NC: 2026:KHC:6607
                                                             WP No. 27938 of 2025


                       HC-KAR



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                                  BEFORE

                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                                WRIT PETITION NO.27938 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

                      BETWEEN:

                      SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE,
                      MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS,
                      GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
                      2ND FLOOR, PARYAVARAN BHAWAN,
                      CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,
                      NEW DELHI-110003
                      REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
                      PARAMVEER BHATI.                                ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI K. ARVIND KAMATH, ADDL SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
                      FOR SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, CGC)

                      AND:

                      1.   C.P. YOGESHWARA
                           S/O SHRI PUTTAMADEGOWDA,
Digitally signed by        AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
MAHALAKSHMI B M            464, 1ST G CROSS, 2ND PHASE,
Location: HIGH             BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                  BENGALURU-560085.

                      2.   M/S. MEGACITY (BENGALURU)
                           DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS LIMITED
                           A COMPANY INCORPORATED
                           UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
                           HAVING OFFICE AT MEGA TOWER,
                           120, KENGAL HANUMANTHAIAH ROAD,
                           BENGALURU-560027
                           REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR.                    ...RESPONDENTS

                      (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
                          SRI VIVEKANANDA N., ADVOCATE FOR R-1)
                                -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC:6607
                                          WP No. 27938 of 2025


HC-KAR



      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, PRAYING
TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN C.C.NO.30796/2021 BEFORE THE
HON'BLE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL         MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A; SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DATED 28.08.2025 IN C.C.NO.30796/2021 REJECTING THE
PETITIONERS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 311 OF Cr.P.C. PASSED
BY HON'BLE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU AND ETC.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                        ORAL ORDER

The petitioner-the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (for short 'Office') is before this Court calling in question the order of the concerned Court which rejects the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C for production of certain documents.

2. Sri K. Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, would submit that the production of those documents were imperative, as they were not produced at an earlier point in time. The concerned Court fell in error in interpreting Section 311 and in permitting those documents to be brought on record.

3. Sri. Vikram Huilgol, learned senior counsel along with Sri Vivekananda .N, learned counsel for respondent No.1 -3- NC: 2026:KHC:6607 WP No. 27938 of 2025 HC-KAR would not object to the production of those documents. In the light of the said submission, delving deeper into the interpretation of Section 311 or the necessity of production of the documents is not necessary. He further submits that the complaint is of the year 2012 and therefore, the concerned Court be directed to conclude the proceedings within a time frame as this Court may deem fit to fix.

4. In the light of the said circumstance, I deem it appropriate to pass the following:

ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 28.08.2025 passed in C.C. No.30796/2021 by the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A stands quashed.
iii. The application filed by the petitioner stands allowed.
The documents are permitted to be placed on record. All consequential steps relating to the marking of the documents shall be permitted. -4-
NC: 2026:KHC:6607 WP No. 27938 of 2025 HC-KAR iv. The concerned Court will endeavour to conclude the proceedings with an outer limit of six months, if not earlier, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60