CRL.P/7363/2026 of SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA C Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 27 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.42/2026 registered for offences punishable under Sections 34, 120B, 409, 420, 419, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

2. Heard Sri. Vinod Kumar M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. B. Lethif, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2. Though the petitions differ, the allegations are the same as they pertain to two different survey numbers. The petitioners claim to be the owner of the property, which had become the subject

HC-KAR

matter of acquisition and the acquisition had become the subject matter of proceedings before this Court in WP.No.7950/2014, in which the acquisition comes to be annulled and the BDA had tossed the acquisition before the Division Bench and the said Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal on 31.01.2023. The same is pending before the Apex Court.

4. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the acquisition or otherwise, it is in its aftermath. The petitioners claimed to be the owners of the property were pursuant to a particular Will. The Will according to Sri. B. lethif, learned counsel appearing for the BDA is said to be a product of forgery. The product of forgery is not alleged on the basis of nothing, but on the basis of forensic examination of the signature of the executant of the Will, upon which the petitioners have sought their claim on.

5. The learned counsel submits that after forensic examination, the signature on the Will is said to be different from the actual executant of the Will. In that light, Sri. B. lethif,

HC-KAR

learned counsel submits that the matter must be permitted to be investigated into, as the original kathedar, who had fought the litigation has also taken compensation from the hands of the BDA. Now the petitioners from nowhere spring to claim the land after the acquisition proceedings are annulled. Therefore, the learned counsel submits investigation in the least is a must.

6. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that investigation is imperative. In the light of said opinion, I deem it appropriate to dispose these petitions with a direction to the petitioners to co-operate with the investigation and in the event, the final report is filed post investigation, the petitioners would be at liberty to knock at the doors of this Court, all over again. All the contentions would remain open. In the light of the interim order subsisting in the case at hand, the petitioners are directed to co-operate with the investigation.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail after which the present petition was preferred and an interim order

HC-KAR

of stay was granted. Now this Court has permitted investigation, which would not mean that the anticipatory bail so granted would vanish, it would continue even if the final report is filed.

8. It is needless to observe that the petitioners are at liberty to assist the investigation by handing over documents in their possession that would become necessary.

9. With the aforesaid observation, the petitions stand disposed.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

JY List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16