Karnataka High Court transfers probe into alleged ₹200-crore land fraud to CCB after police filed ‘B’ report

The petitioner sought transfer of the investigation in Crime No. 446/2025, registered on a complaint alleging impersonation, forgery, fabrication of property documents, conspiracy and related offences concerning land claimed by Smt. R. Radha

After earlier proceedings in which this Court declined to quash the crime and directed the investigation to proceed, the jurisdictional police filed a ‘B’ report against accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6; the report was directed to be accepted, while investigation concerning accused Nos. 7–14 remained pending

The petitioner sought transfer of the investigation to the Central Crime Branch (CCB), alleging that the nature of the complaint was inconsistent with the closure of the case against some accused

1. Whether, in light of the ‘B’ report filed against some accused and the pending investigation against others, further investigation should be entrusted to an agency other than the jurisdictional police.

2. Whether the serious allegations of impersonation and document fabrication, together with the circumstances surrounding the ‘B’ report, warranted further investigation by the CCB.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS were invoked as the basis for the petition seeking transfer of the investigation.

The Court applied the principle that civil and criminal remedies may coexist where the allegations disclose the ingredients of criminal offences; the availability or pendency of civil proceedings does not, by itself, bar criminal investigation. It relied on *Rocky v. State of Telangana*, *Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, *Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy* and *Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi)* for that principle.

The Court also applied the requirement that criminal investigation be fair, impartial and credible, and that further investigation may be entrusted to a different agency where the circumstances give rise to a reasonable apprehension that the existing investigation lacks credibility.

The complaint alleged a coordinated scheme involving impersonation of the property owner and fabrication and use of documents to claim or deal with her land; the Court considered those allegations materially different from a dispute confined to civil title or contractual rights.

Although a ‘B’ report had been filed against some accused, investigation into the remaining accused was still pending. In view of the seriousness and detail of the allegations, the Court found that the report and the circumstances in which it had been filed did not inspire confidence, and that allowing the same agency to continue the investigation would not adequately address the resulting concern about fairness and credibility.

The transfer was directed to ensure an objective inquiry, not to predetermine whether the accused were guilty or require a charge sheet.

The CCB was directed to conduct a fair, impartial and comprehensive further investigation and submit its final report to the jurisdictional court within three months of receiving the order. The Court clarified that its observations did not express any opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused.