MR VENKATESH KANNAPPAN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025
®


CNR: KAHC010538402025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11838 OF 2025

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN

MR VENKATESH KANNAPPAN
S/O SRI. KANNAPPAN RAMASAMI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT A-11, APPLE BLOCK,
APPASWAMY ORCHIDS,
85-87, ARCOT ROAD,
OPPOSITE TO AVM STUDIO, VADAPALANI,
CHENNAI 600 026
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI: A. RAMESH., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ATUL MADHAVAN., ADVOCATE)

AND


1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA P.S.
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.












2. MR. K. VENKATESH CHELLAM,
S/O. MR. V.C. KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ND
RESIDING AT NO.20, 2 CROSS,
PARAPPANNA AGRAHARA,
BENGALURU-560 010

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANJITH KUMAR N., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. ARUNA SHYAM., SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. S. RAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS)
CR.P.C BY PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR (ANNEXURE-A) IN CR.NO.146/2025
IX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU REGISTERED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 PARAPANNA AGRAHARA POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES
U/S.S 318(4),319(2),322,351(2),351(3) OF THE BNS, 2023 AND
CONSEQUENTLY THE COMPLAINT (ANNEXURE-B) FILED BY RESPONDENT
NO.2 AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CAV ORDER


1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
i. Quash the FIR (Annexure-A) in Cr.No.146/2025
IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, bengaluru
registered by Respondent no.1 Parapanna
Agrahara Police, for the o/p/s 318(4), 319(2),
322, 351(2), 351(3) of the BNS, 2023 and
consequently the complaint (Annexure-B) filed by
Respondent no.2.

ii. Pass any such other and further orders as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts
and circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity.



2. On a complaint being filed by Respondent No.2 on
12.05.2025, an FIR in Crime No.146 of 2025 came to
be registered by the Parappana Agrahara Police
Station on 15.05.2025 for offences under Sections
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


318(4), 319(2), 322, 351(2) and 351(3) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Challenging the
same, the Petitioner is before this Court seeking for
the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The submission of Sri.A.Ramesh., learned Senior
counsel for the Petitioner is that:

3.1. The complaint has been filed only to give a
criminal colour to a civil dispute to require this
Court to intercede.

3.2. He submits that, according to the complaint,
Respondent No.2 claims to be the absolute
owner and in peaceful possession of the
property bearing No.584, A-Block, AECS
Layout, Kudlu Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal
Taluk, Bengaluru, measuring 2,400 sq. ft.,
which was purchased under a sale deed dated
28.03.2022 executed by Smt. Usha in his
favour.

3.3. It is alleged that, as Respondent No.2 was
required to travel frequently, he executed a
General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of
the Petitioner on 07.12.2022 to look after the
property in his absence. Respondent No.2 is
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


stated to have cancelled the GPA on
15.04.2025, caused a publication in two local
newspapers on 22.04.2025 and informed the
Petitioner of the cancellation on 23.04.2025.
Despite such intimation, the Petitioner is
alleged to have sold the property under a sale
deed. Respondent No.2 claims to have learnt of
the sale on 05.05.2025 and thereafter to have
received threatening calls.

3.4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that, even if
the allegations in the complaint are accepted as
true, they concern the transfer of immovable
property and arise out of a civil dispute.
According to him, the allegations do not
disclose the ingredients of the offences alleged
against the Petitioner.

3.5. He disputes the complainant's version and
submits that it was, in fact, the Petitioner who
funded the purchase of the property.
Respondent No.2 had allegedly approached the
Petitioner for financial assistance, representing
that he was a contractor and would develop the
property, thereby securing good returns for the
Petitioner.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025



3.6. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the emails
and other correspondence placed on record
demonstrate that Respondent No.2
acknowledged that the funds for purchasing the
property were provided by the Petitioner.
Though Respondent No.2 paid the registration
charges and stamp duty, those amounts were
also reimbursed by the Petitioner. He further
relies upon WhatsApp conversations between
the parties which, according to him, establish
Respondent No.2's acknowledgment of the
Petitioner's financial contribution.

3.7. He submits that the explanation that the GPA
was executed merely to look after the property
during Respondent No.2's travel is improbable.
The property is situated in Bengaluru, whereas
the Petitioner resides in Chennai. According to
learned Senior Counsel, the GPA, which also
conferred the power to sell, was executed to
secure the Petitioner's investment in the
property and not merely to enable the
Petitioner to look after it in Respondent No.2's
absence.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025



3.8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
Respondent No.2 failed to hand over the
developed project despite repeatedly assuring
the Petitioner that he would do so. Instead,
Respondent No.2 unilaterally cancelled the GPA,
thereby jeopardising the Petitioner's interests.
The Petitioner thereafter executed sale deeds in
respect of the property and the development
thereon at a lesser cost, which, according to
him, also resulted in financial loss to the
Petitioner.

3.9. On these facts, learned Senior Counsel submits
that the execution of the sale deeds was an
attempt to protect the Petitioner's investment
and would not constitute an offence under
Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 (BNS). He contends that the offence of
cheating requires deception and dishonest
intention from the inception of the transaction.
In the present case, the dealings between the
parties commenced in 2022, with the Petitioner
providing funds for the purchase of the
property, construction and other expenses.
Respondent No.2, on the other hand, did not
pay any amount to the Petitioner. It is the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


Petitioner's case that Respondent No.2 has
retained the benefit of the investment while
cancelling the GPA and denying the Petitioner
the benefit of the transaction.

3.10. He, therefore, submits that the essential
ingredients of cheating, particularly dishonest
intention at the inception of the transaction, are
absent. The dispute concerning the cancellation
of the GPA and the subsequent execution of the
sale deeds cannot, in the circumstances, be
converted into an offence under Section 318(4)
of the BNS.

3.11. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
the Petitioner had lodged a complaint against
Respondent No.2, which was registered as
Crime No.96 of 2025. Respondent No.2
challenged the registration of the said criminal
proceedings before the Madras High Court in
Crl.O.P. No.18787 of 2025. The petition came to
be dismissed. The challenge to that order
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.)
No.3004 of 2026 was also dismissed.

3.12. He points out that the Petitioner's complaint
was lodged on 30.04.2025, whereas the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


complaint filed by Respondent No.2 was lodged
subsequently, on 12.05.2025. He relies upon
this sequence of events in support of his
submission that the complaint filed by
Respondent No.2 is a counterblast to the
proceedings initiated by the Petitioner.

3.13. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that
Respondent No.2 has filed O.S. No.620 of 2026
before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal,
Bengaluru Rural, seeking cancellation of the
sale deeds executed by the Petitioner in favour
of various persons, a declaration that the sale
deeds are void ab initio, recovery of possession
of the ten flats constructed on the property,
mesne profits and permanent injunction.

3.14. In view of the Petitioner's complaint being
under investigation and the civil suit filed by
Respondent No.2 being pending, learned Senior
Counsel submits that the dispute is essentially
civil in nature and that the criminal complaint
has been instituted only to give it a criminal
colour.

3.15. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Senior
Counsel submits that the criminal proceedings
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


against the Petitioner are an abuse of the
process of Court and that the petition is liable
to be allowed.

4. Sri.Aruna Shyam., learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Respondent No.2 would submit that:

4.1. The property in question stands in the name of
Respondent No.2 under a registered sale deed.
The Petitioner's contention that he had funded
the purchase of the property is disputed and is
a matter requiring investigation. According to
him, even assuming that the Petitioner had
provided funds towards the purchase or
development of the property, such financial
contribution would not, by itself, confer
ownership of the property upon the Petitioner
or authorise him to deal with it contrary to the
terms of the authority granted to him.

4.2. Learned Senior Counsel submits that
Respondent No.2 had executed a General Power
of Attorney in favour of the Petitioner on
07.12.2022. The said GPA was, however,
cancelled on 15.04.2025, and a registered deed
of revocation was also executed on that date.
Thereafter, a public notice notifying the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


cancellation was published in two local
newspapers on 22.04.2025. The Petitioner was
also specifically informed of the cancellation on
23.04.2025. Thus, according to learned Senior
Counsel, there can be no dispute, at least at
this stage, that the Petitioner had notice of the
revocation of the GPA before the subsequent
sale transactions.

4.3. He further submits that, notwithstanding the
cancellation of the GPA and the intimation
thereof, the Petitioner proceeded on 05.05.2025
to execute sale deeds in favour of various
purchasers in respect of the ten flats
constructed on the property, together with the
corresponding ten car parking areas. The sale
transactions were thus undertaken after the
authority under which the Petitioner claims to
have acted had been revoked and after such
revocation had been communicated to him.
Learned Senior Counsel contends that this
circumstance is central to the complaint and
cannot be brushed aside as a mere
disagreement concerning accounts or
investment between the parties.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025



4.4. According to learned Senior Counsel, the
Petitioner's assertion that he had funded the
purchase and development of the property does
not answer the specific allegation that he
proceeded to execute the sale deeds after the
revocation of the GPA. Whether the Petitioner
actually provided the funds, the nature and
extent of such funding, the purpose for which
the GPA was executed, the rights conferred
thereunder and the circumstances in which the
Petitioner proceeded to execute the sale deeds
are all matters which require examination
during investigation. The Petitioner cannot,
merely by relying upon the alleged financial
contribution, claim an unrestricted right to deal
with the property after the authority granted to
him had been revoked.

4.5. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the
allegations require the Investigating Officer to
examine the registered sale deed under which
Respondent No.2 acquired the property, the
GPA executed in favour of the Petitioner, the
registered deed of revocation, the public notice
and the subsequent sale deeds executed by the
Petitioner. The circumstances in which the sale
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


deeds came to be executed, the purchasers in
whose favour they were executed, the
consideration received, the manner in which the
sale proceeds were dealt with and the
Petitioner's knowledge of the revocation are all
relevant aspects. These matters cannot be
conclusively determined on the basis of the
Petitioner's interpretation of the
correspondence and financial transactions
between the parties.

4.6. On these facts, learned Senior Counsel submits
that the complaint discloses allegations of
conduct going beyond a mere breach of
contractual or civil obligations. The allegation is
not confined to a failure to account for the
money allegedly invested by the Petitioner or to
a disagreement regarding the development of
the property. The specific allegation is that,
after the revocation of the GPA had been
communicated to him, the Petitioner proceeded
to execute sale deeds in respect of the flats and
car parking areas in favour of third parties.
Whether this conduct attracts the offences
alleged is a matter to be examined on the basis
of the material collected during investigation. It
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


would, therefore, be premature for this Court to
accept the Petitioner's explanation and
terminate the investigation at its threshold.

4.7. Learned Senior Counsel also questions the
Petitioner's contention that the dispute is purely
civil in nature. He submits that the mere
availability of civil remedies does not exclude
the possibility of criminal liability where the
allegations independently disclose the
ingredients of an offence.

4.8. Respondent No.2 has instituted O.S. No.620 of
2026 seeking, among other reliefs, cancellation
of the sale deeds executed by the Petitioner, a
declaration that they are void ab initio, recovery
of possession of the ten flats, mesne profits and
permanent injunction. The pendency of the civil
suit does not, according to him, prevent the
jurisdictional police from investigating the
allegations concerning the Petitioner's conduct
after the revocation of the GPA.

4.9. He further submits that the Petitioner's
contention is internally inconsistent. The
Petitioner has himself lodged a criminal
complaint against Respondent No.2, which
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


came to be registered as Crime No.96 of 2025,
arising out of the very same transaction.
Respondent No.2 challenged the registration of
those proceedings before the Madras High
Court in Crl.O.P. No.18787 of 2025, and the
petition was dismissed. The challenge to that
order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
(Crl.) No.3004 of 2026 was also dismissed.
Having invoked the criminal process against
Respondent No.2 in relation to the transaction,
the Petitioner cannot, merely for the purpose of
resisting the present complaint, contend that
the dispute is exclusively civil in nature and
that no criminal investigation can be
undertaken against him.

4.10. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
the fact that the Petitioner's complaint was
lodged on 30.04.2025, before Respondent No.2
lodged the present complaint on 12.05.2025,
does not by itself render the latter a
counterblast. The sequence of complaints is
only one circumstance and cannot, without
examining the allegations and the events
preceding them, determine the bona fides or
otherwise of the complaint filed by Respondent
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


No.2. The latter complaint specifically concerns
the execution of the sale deeds after the
cancellation of the GPA and the communication
of such cancellation to the Petitioner.

4.11. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the
Petitioner is seeking, at this stage, to rely upon
his own version of the financial arrangements
between the parties and to invite this Court to
accept that the sale transactions were
undertaken only to protect his investment.
Such a defence involves disputed questions
concerning the source of funds, the
understanding between the parties, the scope
of the GPA, the effect of its revocation and the
circumstances surrounding the execution of the
subsequent sale deeds. These questions require
investigation and cannot be resolved merely by
accepting the Petitioner's interpretation of the
correspondence, emails and WhatsApp
exchanges relied upon by him.

4.12. He, therefore, submits that the allegations in
the complaint, particularly the execution of the
sale deeds after the registered revocation of the
GPA and after the Petitioner had been informed
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


of such revocation, warrant investigation by the
jurisdictional police. The pendency of the
Petitioner's complaint, the civil suit filed by
Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner's claim of
having funded the property do not, by
themselves, justify quashing the present
proceedings. The investigation ought not to be
interdicted at this stage.

4.13. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Senior
Counsel submits that the contention that
Respondent No.2 has given a criminal colour to
a civil dispute is untenable. He submits that the
complaint discloses allegations requiring
investigation and that the petition is liable to be
dismissed.


5. Heard Sri.A.Ramesh., learned Senior counsel for the
Petitioner, and Sri.Aruna Shyam., learned Senior
Counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the papers.

6. Though there are several decisions which have been
relied upon by Sri.A.Ramesh., learned Senior Counsel
for the Petitioner, they are not being adverted to,
since most of the said citations relate to general
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


principles, which would not be applicable to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this matter.

7. The peculiar facts of the present case are that the
Petitioner is stated to be residing in Chennai.
Respondent No.2 had allegedly approached the
Petitioner at Chennai with an investment proposal.
The Petitioner claims to have invested several crores
of rupees towards the purchase of the property in
Bengaluru in the name of Respondent No.2 and the
subsequent construction of ten flats on the said
property.

8. The dispute appears to have arisen at the stage
when the flats were to be handed over. The Petitioner
contends that, upon cancellation of the General
Power of Attorney, he proceeded to transfer the flats
to third parties to safeguard his investment.

9. Respondent No.2, on the other hand, claims that the
property belongs to him, that the Petitioner was
merely his power of attorney holder and that the
Petitioner, despite being informed of the cancellation
of the GPA, proceeded to sell the flats to third
parties. On this basis, Respondent No.2 alleges
commission of the offences referred to above.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025



10. It is also necessary to notice that the Petitioner
lodged a criminal complaint on 30.04.2025. Though
the complaint was lodged on that date, it came to be
registered only on 28.05.2025 as Crime No.96 of
2025 for an offence under Section 420 of the IPC,
corresponding to Section 318(4) of the BNS, 2023.
Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 12.05.2025,
which came to be registered on 15.05.2025 as Crime
No.146 of 2025.

11. Thus, both the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 have
set the criminal law in motion against each other in
respect of the very same transaction. It is relevant
that Respondent No.2 challenged the registration of
Crime No.96 of 2025 before the Madras High Court in
Crl.O.P. No.18787 of 2025. The said petition was
dismissed on 07.10.2025, permitting the
investigation to proceed. The challenge to that order
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.)
No.3004 of 2026 was also dismissed on 23.02.2026,
with the Hon'ble Supreme Court declining to
interfere. Consequently, investigation in Crime No.96
of 2025 is proceeding before the Chennai CCB,
whereas further proceedings in Crime No.146 of
2025 have been stayed by this Court in the present
petition.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025



12. The legal position concerning counter-complaints is
well settled. A complaint by the opposite party
setting out a rival version of the same transaction is
not barred merely because an earlier FIR has already
been registered. Where there are rival versions of the
same occurrence, separate complaints may be
registered and investigated. The two complaints in
the present case are, on the face of the record, rival
versions put forward by the parties to the same
underlying transaction. The mere fact that the
Petitioner's complaint was lodged earlier does not
render the complaint of Respondent No.2
impermissible.

13. What requires consideration is the manner in which
the two complaints are to be investigated. The
allegations in both complaints are interlinked and
concern the same investment arrangement, the
purchase and development of the property, the
execution and cancellation of the GPA, and the
subsequent sale of the flats. The alleged dealings and
financial arrangements extend between Chennai and
Bengaluru. Since the Chennai CCB is already
investigating Crime No.96 of 2025, it would be
appropriate for the connected allegations made by
Respondent No.2 in Crime No.146 of 2025 also to be
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


examined in coordination with the jurisdictional
police in Karnataka. This would facilitate a
comprehensive investigation of both versions and
avoid inconsistent or uncoordinated investigations.

14. The complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 has
already resulted in the registration of Crime No.146
of 2025 in Karnataka. It is, therefore, not a case for
registering a fresh FIR at Chennai. The competent
police authorities of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu shall
work out the necessary arrangements, in accordance
with law, for the connected investigation to be
undertaken by the Chennai CCB, with the assistance
of the jurisdictional police in Karnataka wherever
required. The two complaints shall nevertheless be
examined as separate rival versions, and the merits
of each shall be independently assessed.

15. In the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the complaint lodged by Respondent No.2 cannot be
quashed merely on the ground that it gives a
criminal colour to a civil dispute. The Petitioner
himself has invoked the criminal process in respect of
the very same transaction, and the challenge to the
proceedings arising from his complaint has been
rejected by the Madras High Court and the Hon'ble
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025


Supreme Court has declined to interfere with that
order. The pendency of a civil suit concerning the
property does not, by itself, exclude the possibility of
criminal offences having been committed. Whether
the allegations ultimately establish the ingredients of
the offences alleged is a matter for investigation. At
this stage, the complaint of Respondent No.2 cannot
be interdicted on the grounds urged by the Petitioner.

16. In that view of the matter, taking into account the
peculiarity of the facts, this Court passes the
following:
ORDER

dismissed.
(i) The Criminal Petition is

(ii) The interim order staying further proceedings in
Crime No.146 of 2025, registered by Parappana
Agrahara Police Station, Bengaluru, is hereby
vacated.

(iii) Having regard to the interconnection between
the allegations in Crime No.96 of 2025, being
investigated by the Chennai CCB, and Crime
No.146 of 2025, registered in Karnataka, the
Director General of Police, Karnataka, shall
coordinate with the Director General of Police,
Tamil Nadu, to facilitate an effective and
coordinated investigation of both complaints, in
accordance with law.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru
Verified

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62700
CRL.P No. 11838 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010538402025



(iv) The investigating agency in Crime No.146 of
2025 shall coordinate with the Chennai CCB,
obtain relevant materials collected in Crime
No.96 of 2025 and examine the allegations of
Respondent No.2 in the light of the material
available in both cases. The Chennai CCB shall
extend necessary assistance and cooperation to
the jurisdictional investigating agency in
Karnataka.

(v) Both complaints shall be treated as separate
rival versions of the underlying transaction. The
investigation in each case shall be conducted
independently and impartially, without being
influenced by the observations made in this
order or by the mere fact that one complaint
was lodged earlier than the other.

(vi) All contentions of the parties on the merits of
the allegations are kept open. Nothing stated in
this order shall be construed as an expression
of opinion on the guilt or innocence of either
party.

(vii) The investigation shall be conducted
expeditiously and in accordance with law

This Court has been assisted by Ms. Harshada R.B., Law
Clerk, in reviewing this judgement.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:20, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE

SR, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62