Karnataka HC orders senior police inquiry into allegations that officers entered a woman’s home and forced her to issue cheques

Respondent No. 2 alleged that he had entered into an agreement of sale dated 29 June 2024 with the criminal-petitioners concerning a property, and that a dispute arose over the sale consideration and execution of the sale deed. His complaint led to registration of Crime No. 436/2024 for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; the accused sought to quash the FIR while investigation remained pending.

During that investigation, petitioner No. 2 alleged that police officers and others entered her home, assaulted and threatened her, and compelled her to issue cheques and sign documents. She sought police action and protection, stating that her complaint dated 19 January 2025 had not been acted upon.

Respondent No. 2 disputed the allegations and asserted that ₹50 lakh had been paid in cash and ₹48 lakh by cheque.

Whether the FIR in Crime No. 436/2024 should be quashed while the investigation into the disputed sale transaction and alleged payments remained pending

Whether the allegations of police involvement, assault, intimidation and obtaining cheques and documents warranted an independent inquiry and further action on the petitioner’s complaint

Whether the assertion that ₹50 lakh was paid in cash should be referred to the competent Income Tax authority for examination

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), provides the basis for seeking quashing of criminal proceedings; the Court assessed the request in light of the pending investigation and the disputed factual allegations.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution empower the High Court to grant public-law relief, including directing an appropriate inquiry into serious allegations concerning police conduct.

The Court also relied on RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Another, 2025 INSC 490, in directing the competent Income Tax authority to examine the alleged cash payment in accordance with law.

The Court made clear that the disputed payment claims were not determined on their merits.

The Court declined to quash the FIR because the transaction, alleged payments and failure to execute the sale deed raised disputed questions requiring investigation; on the record at that stage, it could not conclude that the complaint was wholly false or that the alleged offences’ ingredients were absent.

By contrast, the allegations of police-assisted entry, assault, intimidation and coercion to obtain cheques and documents were sufficiently serious to warrant examination by a senior officer unconnected with the allegations, including inquiry into what action had been taken on the 19 January 2025 complaint.

The conflicting accounts of the cash and cheque payments were left unresolved, but the specific assertion of a ₹50 lakh cash payment was referred for independent examination by the Income Tax authority.

The Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City, was directed to entrust the 19 January 2025 complaint to a senior police officer, preferably not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police, to examine the allegations and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

The competent Income Tax authority, Karnataka, was directed to examine the alleged ₹50 lakh cash payment and act as permissible by law; the Registrar (Judicial) was directed to forward the petitions and order to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Range.

The Court expressed no opinion on the parties’ rival factual claims.