1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2825 OF 2026 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13508 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13849 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14079 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15517 OF 2025 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3959 OF 2026 IN CRL.P. No. 2825/2026 BETWEEN: 1 . SREERAG .K.D S/O. K.D.DEVADAS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT KANADI HOUSE NEAR DEVA THEATER PERINGOTTUKARA VILLAGE KIZAKKUMMURI POST THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA STATE-680571. 2 . SWAMINATHAN K.U. S/O. LATE. UNNIKRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KANADI HOUSE NEAR DEVA THEATER PERINGOTTUKARA VILLAGE KIZAKKUMMURI POST THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA STATE-680571. 2 3 . K.D.DEVADAS S/O. LATE DAMODHARAN AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT KANADI HOUSE NEAR DEVA THEATER PERINGOTTUKARA VILLAGE KIZAKKUMMURI POST THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA STATE-680571. 4 . K.D.VENUGOPAL S/O LATE. DAMODHARAN AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/AT KANADI HOUSE NEAR DEVA THEATER PERINGOTTUKARA VILLAGE KIZAKKUMMURI POST THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA STATE-680571. 5 . RAJATHA W/O. SWAMINATHAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT KANADI HOUSE NEAR DEVA THEATER PERINGOTTUKARA VILLAGE KIZAKKUMMURI POST THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA STATE-680571. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE BY BELLANDURU POLICE BENGALURU REPTD. BY S.P.P HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU- 560001. 3 2 . UNNIMAYA D/O. UNNI DAMODARAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KANADI HOUSE PERINGOTTUKARA KIZHAKKUMMURI THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA-680571. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP A/W SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.P AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.48895/2025 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.0366/2025 OF BELLANDURU POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 308(2), 351(1), 351(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 46, 62, 61, 248 AND 318 OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLI ACJM COURT, BENGALURU. IN CRL.P. No. 13508/2025 BETWEEN: 1 . PRAVEEN .K.V S/O. VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC. ADVOCATE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL HIGH COURT OF KERALA R/AT KANADI HOUSE, NEAR DEVA THEATER KIZHAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, P.O. KILAKKUMMURI THRISSUR TALUK AND DISTRICT KERALA - 680571. (AS PER AADHAR CARD) ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) 4 AND: 1 . STATE BY BELLANDURU POLICE BENGALURU REPTD. BY S.P.P HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU- 560001. 2 . UNNIMAYA D/O. UNNI DAMODARAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KANADI HOUSE PERINGOTTUKARA KIZHAKKUMMURI THRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA-680571. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP A/W SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.P AND QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.0366/2025 OF BELLANDURU P.S. REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 308(2), 351(1), 351(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 46, 62, 61 OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 41ST ADDL.C.M.M COURT NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU. IN CRL.P. No. 13849/2025 BETWEEN: 1 . SRI. MAHESH SHETTY .M S/O SHANKAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO. 7-138 NEAR VISHNUMURTHY TEMPLE DODDANAGUDDA UDUPI 5 SHIVALLI KARNATAKA-576102. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELLANDURU POLICE STATION REPTD. BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU- 560001. 2 . SMT. UNNIMAYA D/O. MR. UNNIDAMODARAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KANADI HOUSE PERINGOTTUKARA, KIZHAKKUMMURI THRISSUR DISTRICT, KERALA-680571. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP A/W SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.P AND QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.366/2025 OF BELLANDURU POLICE NOW WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLI A.C.J.M COURT AT BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 46, 61, 62, 308(2), 351(1), 351(2), 351(3), 351(4), 352, 248, 318 OF BNS 2023. IN CRL.P. No. 14079/2025 BETWEEN: 1 . MR. MOHAMMED ALAM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 6 S/O ABDUL RAZAK RESIDING AT NO. 1-327/A MARIKATTE ROAD NEAR NADUR COMPOUND 52, HEROOR, UDUPI-576213. 2 . MR. SHARATH .P.S AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O SHASHIDHAR .P.K RESIDING AT NO. F3 HA ARCADE 17TH E MAIN, KHB COLONY 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BANGALORE-560095. 3 . SAJITH .M.V AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O M. VASU RESIDING AT SHANTHI NAGAR VIRAJPET, GONIKOPPAL ROAD VIRAJPET, KODAGU-571218. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR .H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELLANDURU POLICE STATION REPTD. BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU- 560001. 2 . SMT. UNNIMAYA D/O. MR. UNNIDAMODARAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KANNADI HOUSE PERINGOTTUKARA KIZHAKKUMMURI 7 TRISSUR DISTRICT KERALA-680571. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP A/W SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC, 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRL.P AND QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIMR NO.366/2025 REGISTERED BY THE BELLANDURU P.S. DATED 25.07.2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 308(2), 351(1), 351(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 46, 62 AND 61 OF BNS, 2023 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XLI A.C.J.M AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B AS FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. IN CRL.P. No. 15517/2025 BETWEEN: 1 . MS. MONIKA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS C/O RAJINDER KUMAR H NO. 6311, BARKAT ENCLAVE KOT SADIQ, JALANDHAR CITY PUNJAB - 144 001. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N. NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELLANDURU POLICE STATION REPTD. BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU- 560001. 8 2 . SMT. UNNIMAYA D/O. MR. UNNIDAMODARAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KANNADI HOUSE PERINGOTTUKARA KIZHAKKUMMURI THRISSUR, KERALA-680571. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP A/W SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 366/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 POLICE DATED 25/07/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 308(2), 351(1), 351(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 46, 62 AND 61 OF BNS, 2023 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XLI ACJM AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B AS FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. IN CRL.P. No. 15517/2025 BETWEEN: 1 . MS. RATHNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O GANESH RESIDING AT NO. 312 MARIYAMMA TEMPLE ROAD HARINAGAR, ANJANAPURA BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE-560 062. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR .H, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELLANDURU POLICE STATION 9 REPTD. BY S.P.P HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU- 560001. 2 . SMT. UNNIMAYA D/O. MR. UNNIDAMODARAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KANNADI HOUSE PERINGOTTUKARA KIZHAKKUMMURI THRISSUR, KERALA-680571. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP A/W SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC.NO.48895/2025 DATED 12.12.2025, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 308(2), 351(1), 351(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 46, 62, 61 OF BNS, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XLI ACJM, AT BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-C. IN CRL.P. No. 3959/2026 BETWEEN: 1 . MS. RATHNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O GANESH RESIDING AT NO. 312 MARIYAMMA TEMPLE ROAD HARINAGAR, ANJANAPURA BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE-560062. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR .H, ADVOCATE) 10 AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELLANDUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DR. BR AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560001. 2. SMT. UNNIMAYA D/O. MR. UNNIDAMODARAN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KANNADI HOUSE PERINGOTTUKARA KIZHAKKUMMURI THRISSUR, KERALA-680571. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.A. BELLIAPPA, SPP A/W SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC 528 OF BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC.NO.48895/2025 DATED 12.12.2025, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 308(2), 351(1), 351(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 46, 62 AND 61 OF BNS, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XLI ACJM, AT BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 01.04.2026, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM 11 C.A.V. ORDER These batch of petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 to 12 under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.48895/2025 arising out of Crime No.366/2025 of Bellandur Police Station. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The complaint in Cr.No.366/2025 is lodged by one Unnimaya d/o. Unni Damodaran alleging offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 351(1),351(2), 351(3), 351(4), 352, 46, 61 and 62 of BNSS 2023. Subsequently, after investigation charge sheet is filed and offences punishable under Sections 248 and 318 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNS, 2023") are also invoked. 3. Learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.4 to 6, placing reliance on the materials in the FIR, would contend that there are no specific or overt allegations attributed to these accused and that their implication is 12 purely omnibus in nature. It is further contended that the essential ingredients of extortion under Section 308(2) of the BNS, 2023 are not attracted insofar as these accused are concerned, inasmuch as there is no material to demonstrate delivery of property pursuant to any alleged threat. Learned counsel would submit that the call detail records relied upon by the Investigating Officer do not disclose any act of criminal intimidation attributable to accused Nos.4 to 6. Emphasis is also laid on the inordinate delay of two months in lodging the complaint, which, according to the learned counsel, vitiates the prosecution case. It is further urged that accused Nos.4 to 6 were not named in the FIR and have been subsequently implicated, suggesting collusion between the complainant and the police authorities. By referring to the pending civil disputes, injunction orders and testamentary documents, it is contended that the complaint is motivated and an abuse of process. The territorial jurisdiction of this Court 13 is also questioned on the ground that the alleged threat calls were received outside the State of Karnataka. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Isaac Isanga Musumba and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others1 to contend that, in the absence of delivery of property, the offence of extortion is not made out. 4. Learned counsel appearing for accused No.7 adopts similar arguments and would submit that there are absolutely no prima facie materials to proceed against accused No.7. On these grounds, he seeks quashing of the proceedings. 5. Learned counsel appearing for accused No.3 would vehemently contend that accused No.3 is a resident of Punjab and that there are absolutely no materials to proceed against her. It is submitted that she has been 1 (2014) 15 SCC 357 14 falsely implicated solely on the basis of her acquaintance with accused No.2 (Rathna). Except such acquaintance, the FIR does not attribute any specific overt act or role to accused No.3. Placing reliance on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Isaac Isanga Musumba’s (Supra) case, learned counsel seeks quashing of the proceedings against accused No.3. 6. Learned counsel appearing for accused No.1 and accused Nos.8 to 12 would submit that these accused are members of the same family and that there exists a longstanding dispute relating to temple administration with the complainant’s family, in respect of which several civil proceedings are pending in the State of Kerala. Drawing the attention of this Court to the concluding portion of the complaint, it is contended that the allegations are vague and lack material particulars. It is further submitted that though accused No.1 is the trustee of the temple, a false complaint has been lodged at 15 Bengaluru with oblique motives by the complainant, who, according to the learned counsel, is not a trustee. Emphasis is laid on the delay in lodging the complaint to contend that the same is the result of deliberation and concoction in collusion with the police authorities. Referring to the records, learned counsel would point out that on a complaint lodged by accused No.2 (Rathna), a charge sheet has been filed against one Arun, the son-in- law of Unni Damodaran, who was initially arrayed as accused No.2 and later dropped in Crime No.227/2025. It is further contended that even in the subsequent statement of the complainant, the names of accused Nos.8 to 12 do not find mention. Thus, it is argued that accused Nos.8 to 12, being family members of accused No.1, have been falsely implicated. Placing reliance on the Will, which is the subject matter of O.S. No.49/2025 pending before a competent Court in Kerala, it is contended that a predominantly civil dispute is sought to 16 be given a criminal colour and, therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that substantial monetary transactions through RTGS and other banking modes have been unearthed during the course of investigation. It is contended that accused No.5 has received significant amounts from the family members of accused No.1 and that there exist proximate financial transactions among the accused persons, including transfers routed to accused No.3. Referring to the charge sheet materials, learned SPP would contend that the statements of witnesses and documents collected during investigation indicate the existence of a larger conspiracy and that the investigation is still in progress, with the roles of several accused being interlinked. It is further submitted that in view of the stay granted by this Court in respect of accused No.1 and the involvement of family 17 members, namely accused Nos.8 to 12, being prima facie evident, the petitions filed by accused No.1 and accused Nos.8 to 12 deserve to be dismissed so as to enable the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and file an appropriate charge sheet. 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, the following points arise for consideration: "(i) Whether the petitioners have made out a case for quashing of the proceedings at this stage? (ii) Whether the absence of specific allegations or delay in lodging the complaint warrants interference by this Court? (iii) Whether the materials on record disclose prima facie involvement of the accused so as to justify continuation of the proceedings?" 18 FINDING ON Point No.(i): 9. On perusal of the complaint and charge sheet against some of the accused and accompanying materials, there are serious allegations of conspiracy involving multiple accused persons. The charge sheet materials at this stage disclose that substantial amounts have been transferred between the accused persons in close proximity of time. There are serious allegations that accused No.2/Rathna in collusion with accused No.1 has orchestrated the plan to falsely implicate the family members of the complainant. The prosecution is relying on the statements recorded during the investigation indicating coordinated acts. 10. Therefore, in the backdrop of these materials collected since charge sheet is presently filed only against accused Nos.2 and 8 to 12, this Court is of the view that the Investigation Officer has to conclude the investigation against accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7. Unless investigation is completed against prime accused No.1 and other accused, this Court is of 19 the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Section 528 of BNSS. It is trite that while exercising inherent jurisdiction, this Court does not embark upon appreciation of evidence. At this stage, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations disclose a prima facie offence and continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process. 11. It is also a significant and determinative circumstance that the investigation, insofar as it relates to the prime accused, namely accused Nos.1 and 3, is admittedly stayed by this Court. The charge sheet presently filed is only partial in nature and pertains to certain accused, while the role of the principal accused persons around whom the gravamen of allegations relating to conspiracy, financial transactions and coordinated acts revolves remains under active investigation. In such a situation, any adjudication by this Court on the basis of the existing charge sheet material, which is admittedly incomplete, would be premature and legally untenable. 20 12. It is trite law that the power to quash criminal proceedings cannot be exercised in a truncated factual background where the investigation itself has not reached its culmination. The material that may ultimately be collected during the course of further investigation against accused Nos.1 and 3 may have a direct and substantial bearing on the role attributed to the other accused persons, including the petitioners herein. The interlinked nature of allegations, particularly those involving conspiracy and financial dealings, necessitates a holistic appreciation of the entire material, which can only be possible upon completion of investigation. 13. Entertaining a plea for quashing at this stage, on the strength of an incomplete charge sheet, would amount to stifling a legitimate investigation and may result in miscarriage of justice. This Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction, cannot pre-empt the outcome of an ongoing investigation or render findings on a fragmented record. Therefore, unless and until the investigation against the prime accused is concluded and the entire material is placed before the Court, the prayer 21 for quashing of proceedings on the basis of the existing charge sheet material is clearly impermissible. 14. On deeper examination of the prima facie materials against accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 and charge sheet materials against accused Nos.2 and 8 to 12, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, point No.(i) is answered in the negative. Finding on Point No.(ii): 15. Though accused are seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the complaint is lodged after two months of the incident, this Court at this juncture is not inclined to accede to the said contention. The delay cannot be examined at this juncture when allegations pertain to serious offences pertaining to conspiracy and financial transactions and further the complaint alleged intimidation and coercion and crime is registered alleging extortion. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the effect of delay in the facts and circumstances of the case is a matter of trial and cannot be 22 conclusively adjudicated by this Court under Section 528 of BNSS and accordingly, point No.(ii) is answered in the negative. Finding on point No.(iii): 16. The contention urged on behalf of certain accused that there are no specific or overt allegations against them also does not merit acceptance at this stage. It is well settled that in cases involving allegations of criminal conspiracy, coordinated financial transactions and interlinked acts of multiple accused persons, the role of each individual accused cannot be viewed in isolation at the threshold. The true nature, extent and degree of participation of each accused would become discernible only upon a comprehensive appreciation of evidence during the course of a full-fledged trial. At this preliminary stage, the Court is not expected to meticulously evaluate 23 the sufficiency or reliability of the material so as to record findings on individual culpability. 17. In that view of the matter, the reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Isaac Isanga Musumba and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (Supra) is clearly misplaced and does not advance the case of the petitioners. The factual matrix in the present case discloses allegations not merely of isolated acts, but of a concerted course of conduct involving financial transactions, alleged threat calls, and counter proceedings initiated by rival factions. The question as to whether the complaint lodged by accused No.2 (Rathna) against the complainant’s family members, the alleged telephonic threats coupled with demand for money, and the substantial transfer of funds through RTGS between members of the family of accused No.1 were part of a larger design to implicate the complainant’s family particularly in the backdrop of filing 24 of charge sheet in C.C. No.28493/2025 arising out of Crime No.227/2025 are all issues which are intrinsically complex. These are mixed questions of fact and law which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashing, but necessarily require a detailed appreciation of oral and documentary evidence during trial. 18. The material placed on record, more particularly the alleged financial transactions, the banking trail and the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, prima facie indicate interlinkages which require deeper scrutiny. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the movement of funds, the nexus between the parties, and the existence of any coercive or threatening circumstances leading to such transactions. Such an exercise would necessarily involve examination and cross-examination of witnesses, analysis of documentary evidence and testing of the credibility of the material relied upon by the prosecution. This Court, 25 while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, cannot embark upon such an enquiry or undertake a roving appreciation of evidence. The parameters governing exercise of inherent jurisdiction do not permit this Court to conduct a mini-trial or to record findings on disputed factual aspects. 19. As already noted supra, the present proceedings cannot be viewed in isolation, having regard to the existence of parallel and interlinked proceedings between the parties. The materials placed on record disclose that in C.C. No.28493/2025 arising out of Crime No.227/2025, there exists a substantially overlapping factual matrix. There are allegations and counter- allegations between the rival factions, including assertions of false implication and retaliatory prosecution. The record further indicates coordinated conduct across jurisdictions, with proceedings pending not only within the State but also before competent Courts in the State of Kerala. The 26 existence of multiple judicial orders, including orders of status quo passed by the Kerala Courts in respect of the underlying civil disputes, would clearly indicate that the dispute between the parties is not only complex but also multi-layered, involving intertwined civil and criminal dimensions. In such circumstances, this Court would be slow to interdict the criminal proceedings at the threshold. 20. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the investigation, insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7, must be permitted to reach its logical conclusion. The allegations pertaining to criminal conspiracy, financial transactions and coordinated conduct attributed to the accused persons require a thorough and comprehensive examination during trial. The grounds urged by the petitioners, namely delay in lodging the complaint and absence of specific overt acts, 27 are matters which cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this stage and are essentially issues to be tested on evidence. 21. It is trite that the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only in cases where the complaint does not disclose any offence or where continuation of proceedings would amount to a manifest abuse of the process of law. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute any offence or that the proceedings are patently malicious or untenable in law. On the contrary, the material on record discloses prima facie grounds warranting continuation of investigation and trial. 22. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that interference at this stage is wholly unwarranted. The 28 petitioners cannot seek quashing merely on the premise that the case against them is weak or doubtful. Such an assessment falls within the domain of trial. Consequently, point No.(iii) is answered in the affirmative. 23. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB