Supreme Court: In an appeal arising from a challenge to a Karnataka High Court order refusing to quash criminal proceedings in a complex land dispute, marked by allegations of non-payment and forged documents leading to multiple sales of the same property, the division bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti, JJ. the State of Karnataka to submit a comprehensive and categorical report on the status and direction of the investigation. It specifically instructed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central Crime Branch, Bangalore City) to supervise the probe and to report, in a sealed cover, on the authenticity of the disputed documents, the role of registration officials, and whether the charge sheet filed was preliminary or final. The Inspector General of Registration and the Commissioner of Stamps were also asked to provide their input in the final report. The interim order protecting the petitioner was directed to continue until the next hearing, which was scheduled for 11-11-2025.
The Court, having considered the matter in depth, observed that the State had to answer several pertinent questions which had not been forthcoming, particularly since the presumption was that it was a neutral entity expected to place the correct facts on record. Accordingly, the Court directed the State to submit a report regarding the overall allegations made in the complaint filed by respondent 2 in the case. The Court further directed the State to take note of paragraph 7 of the complaint, wherein it was alleged that officials of the Sub-Registrar’s Office, where the documents were stated to have been registered, had acted in connivance with the other co-accused.
The Court expected that the investigation would be conducted from all angles and that a categorical finding would be placed before it on the complainant’s stand, that all signatures on the sale deed as well as the subsequent rectification deed were forged and fabricated, and that the executants had not even appeared before the concerned officers for the purpose of accepting the documents, including the requirement of submitting their biometric details.
The Court further directed that it be informed whether the investigation had been fully completed or only partially completed, and whether the chargesheet filed was a full and final chargesheet or if the investigation was still continuing with regard to some of the accused persons. With respect to the core issue, the Court directed that a categorical finding be submitted in a sealed cover by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Central Crime Branch (CCB), Bangalore City, State of Karnataka, under his signature.
The Court directed that the final report must also take into account the response of the Inspector General of Registration and the Commissioner of Stamps regarding the allegations in the complaint. The entire exercise is to be conducted under the strict supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Central Crime Branch, Bangalore City.
The matter was listed on 11-11-2025, and in the meantime, the interim order continued until the next date.
[Chandrashekar C. v State of Karnataka, Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6639/2023, decided on 16-09-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv.,Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR,Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv.,Mr. Shivam Kunal, Adv.,Mr. B Yeshwanth Raj, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Nishant Patil, A.A.G.,Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR,Mr. Gourav Agarwal, Sr. Adv.,Mr. Darpan Km, Adv.,Ms. Amrita Sharma, Adv.,Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw, Adv.,Mr. Durgha Prakash, Adv.,Ms. Easha Chandhok, Adv.,Ms. Rashi Bansal, AOR