- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45050 WP No. 19348 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 19348 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. JOSEPH SUDHARSHAN S/O. S.A. FRANCIS XAVIER, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.15, 8TH CROSS, VICTORIA LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 047. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURTHY D. NAIK, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHENDRA G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, GANGANAGAR, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 032. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECT THE RESPONDENT - CBI TO REGISTER AN FIR, BASED ON THE WRITTEN INFORMATION DATED 28.06.2021 AT ANNEXURE-A SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT & ETC. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45050 WP No. 19348 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B-GROUP', THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for direction to the respondent - CBI to register FIR based on the written information dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure 'A'), submitted by the petitioner. 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner and his mother are the joint owners of the immovable property measuring to an extent of 02.02 guntas in Survey No.74/1 and 74/3 of Horamavu Agara Village, K R Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It is also stated that one of the developers namely, Mrs.Akshaya Builders, Developers and Promoters represented by one of its partners -Sri Arya Lohith Reddy approached the petitioner and his mother for developing the property jointly and as such the petitioner and his mother have entered into a Joint Development Agreement on 03.09.2012 with the developers. It is also further stated that, as per the Joint Development - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45050 WP No. 19348 of 2022 Agreement, the construction has to be made in the property wherein 74 flats have to be handed over to the owners- petitioners and the remaining 94 flats have to be handed over to the developer. It is further stated in the writ petition that, after the construction of the apartments, the aforementioned developer approached the petitioner and his mother to purchase 25 flats from their share. In this regard, it is stated that the aforementioned developer offered them ₹ 3,100/- per square feet and ₹. 2,00,000/- per car parking space. In this regard, it is the case of the petitioner that the aforementioned developer has forced the petitioner to open an Escrow account in Syndicate Bank (now merged with Canara Bank), Saunders Road Branch Bengaluru. It is further case of the petitioner that, the petitioners were induced to open the escrow account at the instance of the developer in connivance with the Manager of the Bank - Nazir and therefore, the Bank Officials, thereafter, refused to give information about the account opened at the instance of the aforementioned developer. It is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioners were able to get the account details through RTI, wherein a credit of ₹14,97,34,079/- out of which ₹8,81,38,803/- has been - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45050 WP No. 19348 of 2022 deposited as sale consideration paid by various purchasers of 17 flats from the share of the petitioner (Owners) Apartments. Thereafter, it is also stated that the aforementioned developer has misused the account of their company without notice to the petitioner and with an intention to avoid the payment of income tax for their business and therefore, the act of the aforementioned developer along with the Bank Manager namely, Mr. Nazir and other Bank Officials involved is said to be fraudulent transaction. Hence the petitioners have approached the RBI Banking Ombudsman on 15.03.2019. However, the Ombudsman by letter dated 11.02.2021 (Annexure 'C'), refused to interfere with the allegation made by the petitioner. Hence the petitioners have presented this writ petition, seeking direction to the respondent - CBI to register the complaint as mentioned in the Annexure 'A' to the writ petition. Hence this writ petition is filed. 3. I have heard Mr.Murthy D Naik, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri Mahendra G, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Prasanna Kumar P, learned counsel representing the respondent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45050 WP No. 19348 of 2022 4. It is argued by the learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner by referring to the guidelines of the RBI particularly, reporting the frauds to Police and wherein the cases which involve more than ₹ 7.5 crore have to be referred to the CBI for investigation. It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the paragraphs 3 and 4 of the letter addressed by the Ombudsman under the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 (Annexure 'C') and submitted that the claim made by the petitioner cannot be gone into by the Ombudsman and therefore since the huge loss has been caused to the petitioner on account of the involvement of the Officials of the Bank with the aforementioned builder, therefore sought for interference of this Court by directing the respondent to register the FIR as per the complaint dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure A). 5. Per contra, Mr. Prasanna Kumar P, appearing for the respondent submitted that it is the duty of the petitioner to make out a case that it is an exceptional case for entrusting the matter to the CBI for conducting detailed investigation. It is also argued by the learned counsel representing the respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45050 WP No. 19348 of 2022 that as soon as the complaint has been received by the respondent as per Annexure A, a preliminary investigation was made and copy of the same is filed today through sealed cover. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel representing the respondent that the Investigation Report is being filed before this Court with regard to the allegation made by the petitioner and therefore it is contended by the learned counsel representing the respondent that it is not a fit case to refer the matter to the CBI for investigation. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the allegation made by the petitioner is with regard to the sharing of the apartments as per the JDA dated 03.09.2012 with M/s. Akshaya Builders. It is the case of the petitioner that an Escrow account was opened in the Syndicate Bank (now merged with Canara Bank) of Saunders Road Branch, Bengaluru, wherein, certain amount has been deposited in respect of the 17 apartments belonging to the petitioners and in order to evade the Income Tax, the aforementioned developers in connivance with the Officials of the Bank particularly naming the Bank Manager -Nazir and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45050 WP No. 19348 of 2022 other Bank Officials who were involved in the said fraudulent transaction. In this regard, I have carefully examined the guidelines for reporting frauds to police/CBI wherein if the case is registered insofar as the public sector banks are concerned, the cases will be referred to the CBI in the event, the fraud is involving to an extent of ₹ 1 crore upto ₹ 7.5 crores. In this regard, on careful consideration of the averments made in the writ petition as well as the allegation made in the complaint at Annexure A, wherein the entire case revolves around the sharing of the flats and the sale consideration amount deposited by various purchasers in respect of the flats which are allotted in favour of the petitioners as per the JDA dated 03.09.2012. In this regard, taking into consideration the guidelines for reporting frauds to police/CBI and the report of the respondent which is filed through the sealed cover, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition as the petitioner has to approach the competent authority/Court for redressal of their grievance and therefore the allegation made against the involvement of the Bank Officials though the Ombudsman has reported that it does not come within the purview of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45050 WP No. 19348 of 2022 2006. However it is open for the petitioner to avail remedy available under law. In view of this I am of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case for entrusting the complaint produced at Annexure A to the respondent - CBI to conduct investigation in the matter, as an exceptional case, in the public interest. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. In the event if the petitioner approaches the competent authority/Court for redressal of their grievance which are of civil in nature, the findings recorded by this Court in the present writ petition would not come in the way for the relief as sought for by the petitioner in those proceedings. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT-SG