Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8109 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
MR HANUMANTHAPPA LINGADALLI S/O SHIVAPPA LINGADAHALII AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT CHENDINAHAL YELBURGA KOPPAL KARNATAKA 583237 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI.,ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT SERVICES - 1, SSLR & SPECIAL CELL MS BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR &RESPONDENT (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR ,AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE NOTIFICATION DATED - 31.01.2026 BEARING NO. E-RD 11 GRC 2026 AT ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT STATE AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the notification dated 31.01.2026 bearing E-RD 11 GRC 2026 as per Annexure-A issued by respondent/State insofar as petitioner's properties are concerned. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner submits that he was appointed as a Branch Development Manager in M/s. Janasneha Real Wealth Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Koppal. It is stated that on the basis of a complaint dated 04.07.2019 lodged by one Smt. Vijayalakshmi Tavanappa Desai, Udyambag Police Station registered a case in Crime No.82/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, <IPC=). It is further averred that subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Udyambag Police Station, by communication dated 16.11.2019, sought permission from the jurisdictional
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026
Judicial Magistrate to invoke the provisions of Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short, <KPIDFE Act=). The petitioner contends that the said crime was thereafter transferred to the CID for the purpose of further investigation. 3. The gravamen of the petitioner9s grievance is that upon completion of investigation, the CID has submitted its final report categorically recording a finding that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offences and has accordingly dropped his name from the array of accused. Despite such exoneration in the final report, the respondent/State, in complete disregard of the said material, has proceeded to issue the impugned notification, as evidenced at Annexure-<A=, attaching the properties of the petitioner, which action is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. - 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026
4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposed the petition contending that in the absence of the Competent Authority constituted under the KPIDFE Act being arrayed as a party respondent, no effective directions can be issued and the validity of the impugned notification cannot be examined by this Court. This Court is not persuaded to accept the said preliminary objection. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be apposite to refer to the final report submitted by the CID, produced at Annexure-<E=.
The relevant extract of the said report reads as follows: Î Î Î Î ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ Ý Ý Ý Ý
¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¾ ¬Í®Î ¬Í®Î ¬Í®Î ¬Í®Î ÎݮΠÎݮΠÎݮΠÎݮΠÎÝ¿ ÎÝ¿ ÎÝ¿ ÎÝ¿ ¿¾ ¿¾ ¿¾ ¿¾/Any special remarks including reasons for not charge sheeting:
½¬Í®¬®! ½¬Í®¬®! ½¬Í®¬®! ½¬Í®¬®! "#®$%
"#®$%
"#®$%
"#®$% &¬¬Í &¬¬Í &¬¬Í &¬¬Í '¬Î(Ý) '¬Î(Ý) '¬Î(Ý) '¬Î(Ý) ¯+ ¯+ ¯+ ¯+ -Î+. -Î+. -Î+. -Î+. ξÎ0¿1 ξÎ0¿1 ξÎ0¿1 ξÎ0¿1 2Î3 2Î3 2Î3 2Î3."45Î6
"45Î6
"45Î6
"45Î6 7®8¯ 7®8¯ 7®8¯ 7®8¯ 89Îݾ7;¾<¼Í¾.;Î 89Îݾ7;¾<¼Í¾.;Î 89Îݾ7;¾<¼Í¾.;Î 89Îݾ7;¾<¼Í¾.;Î. 2011 ;ÎÝ ;ÎÝ ;ÎÝ ;ÎÝ ¾"¬" ¾"¬" ¾"¬" ¾"¬" ¬Í0> ¬Í0> ¬Í0> ¬Í0> ;Î> ;Î> ;Î> ;Î> ?ν¾A ?ν¾A ?ν¾A ?ν¾A B B B B
CDݼF CDݼF CDݼF CDݼF ®Í ®Í ®Í ®Í ;ÎÝ®7 ;ÎÝ®7 ;ÎÝ®7 ;ÎÝ®7 ¾ ÎÎÍ ¾ ÎÎÍ ¾ ÎÎÍ ¾ ÎÎÍ CCCC ¬¬¼ ¬¬¼ ¬¬¼ ¬¬¼ 2013 ;ÎÝ ;ÎÝ ;ÎÝ ;ÎÝ ¾"¬" ¾"¬" ¾"¬" ¾"¬" Îή!¿ Îή!¿ Îή!¿ Îή!¿ ¾IÎJÎ ¾IÎJÎ ¾IÎJÎ ¾IÎJÎ 89Îݾ7¾< 89Îݾ7¾< 89Îݾ7¾< 89Îݾ7¾< CK CK CK CK ¾ ÎÎ ¼Í¾.Î ¾ ÎÎ ¼Í¾.Î ¾ ÎÎ ¼Í¾.Î ¾ ÎÎ ¼Í¾.Î. 2013 ;ÎÝ ;ÎÝ ;ÎÝ ;ÎÝ ¾"8® ¾"8® ¾"8® ¾"8® 2017 ¾"¬½ÎJÎ ¾"¬½ÎJÎ ¾"¬½ÎJÎ ¾"¬½ÎJΠξ¼ ξ¼ ξ¼ ξ¼ 8½)L®ÍM 8½)L®ÍM 8½)L®ÍM 8½)L®ÍM CCCC ¬¬¼ ¬¬¼ ¬¬¼ ¬¬¼ ξ¼Î ξ¼Î ξ¼Î ξ¼Î ¾N;¾B ¾N;¾B ¾N;¾B ¾N;¾B 8Ý ¼Í¾.Î 8Ý ¼Í¾.Î 8Ý ¼Í¾.Î 8Ý ¼Í¾.Î. ¼® ¼® ¼® ¼® 7®8¯ 7®8¯ 7®8¯ 7®8¯ ½¯¾L¬ ½¯¾L¬ ½¯¾L¬ ½¯¾L¬ ½0½P¾¼Î ½0½P¾¼Î ½0½P¾¼Î ½0½P¾¼Î ¼¬¯®RSÎ ¼¬¯®RSÎ ¼¬¯®RSÎ ¼¬¯®RSÎ &¬¬ &¬¬ &¬¬ &¬¬ I¾ÎJÎ I¾ÎJÎ I¾ÎJÎ I¾ÎJÎ T¾ T¾ T¾ T¾½U9ÎÝ ½U9ÎÝ ½U9ÎÝ ½U9ÎÝ ½¯ ½¯ ½¯ ½¯ ½J¾½VÎT¾<¼Í½UW¾ ½J¾½VÎT¾<¼Í½UW¾ ½J¾½VÎT¾<¼Í½UW¾ ½J¾½VÎT¾<¼Í½UW¾. P¾#Î P¾#Î P¾#Î P¾#Î &¬¬ &¬¬ &¬¬ &¬¬ ºÉ¼¬" ¼¬" ¼¬" ¼¬" T¾½U9ÎÝ T¾½U9ÎÝ T¾½U9ÎÝ T¾½U9ÎÝ LX¾L.#¿¬Í( LX¾L.#¿¬Í( LX¾L.#¿¬Í( LX¾L.#¿¬Í( YÝWL¼Í½U®Í YÝWL¼Í½U®Í YÝWL¼Í½U®Í YÝWL¼Í½U®Í 7ͬ¼® 7ͬ¼® 7ͬ¼® 7ͬ¼®
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026
¾¼¯ ¾¼¯ ¾¼¯ ¾¼¯ &¬¬¬Í( &¬¬¬Í( &¬¬¬Í( &¬¬¬Í( CÎÎÝ® CÎÎÝ® CÎÎÝ® CÎÎÝ® ®ZS[® ®ZS[® ®ZS[® ®ZS[® ÎÞ]^¾<9Î ÎÞ]^¾<9Î ÎÞ]^¾<9Î ÎÞ]^¾<9Î.
On a careful perusal of the extracted portion of the final report submitted by the CID, as produced at Annexure- <E=, this Court finds that the name of the present petitioner has been unequivocally dropped from the array of accused. The Investigating Agency, after conducting a detailed and comprehensive investigation, has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offences. Such a conclusion, arrived at by a specialized agency like the CID, cannot be lightly disregarded or brushed aside by the respondent/State. 5. Once the competent Investigating Agency has exonerated the petitioner and has consciously omitted his name from the charge sheet, the subsequent action of the respondent/State in issuing the impugned notification attaching the petitioner9s property is wholly incongruous and runs contrary to the very foundation of the final report. The impugned action, therefore, suffers from manifest arbitrariness and reflects non-application of mind
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026
to the material placed on record, particularly the findings recorded by the CID. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has a legitimate and enforceable legal right to assail the impugned notification. If the petitioner has been given a clean chit in the course of investigation under the provisions of the KPIDFE Act, the continued attachment of his properties and the initiation or contemplation of coercive measures against him under the KPIDFE Act would be wholly illegal, without jurisdiction, and in clear abuse of the statutory powers vested in the authorities. 7. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the impugned notification, as evidenced at Annexure-<A=, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The same is liable to be set aside as being arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the material on record, particularly the final report submitted by the CID. - 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned notification dated 31.01.2026 bearing No. E-RD 11 GRC 2026, produced at Annexure-<A=, issued by the respondent/State, is hereby quashed. (iii) Consequential relief, if any, shall follow in favour of the petitioner.
Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64