- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14733 WP No. 25635 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 25635 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SMT SHARADHAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O R.PANDURANGA, R/AT NO.47, 1ST G MAIN, GORUGUNTEPALYA, MSK NAGARA, YESHWANTPUR, BENGALURU-560 022 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CID, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER RMC YARD POLICE STATION, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14733 WP No. 25635 of 2025 YESHWANTHPURA, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 3-7-2025 AND 05-08-2025 PASSED IN PETITION NO.200/1349/2025 AND REFERENCE NO.55/2025 RESPECTIVELY ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND A1 ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. II) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO REGISTER THE CASE BY HAND OVER THE INVESTIGATION TO CID/RESPONDENT NO.3 FOR THROUGH INVESTIGATION REGARDING CHEATING BY CONSIDERING THE COMPLAINT/REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 12-06-2025 AND 02-08-2025 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: S CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned endorsements dated 03.07.2025 and 05.08.2025 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexures-A and A1. 2. On a careful perusal of the complaint produced at Annexure–B, it transpires that the petitioner claims to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14733 WP No. 25635 of 2025 have paid a substantial amount of Rs.65,00,000/- to the ten persons named in the complaint on various dates on the assurance that certain benefits such as allotment of a flat, vehicle, mobile phones and other advantages would be provided to her and her husband. The very foundation of the complaint rests upon the assertion that the said persons have received the aforesaid amount and have subsequently failed to honour their promise or return the money despite repeated requests. However, the material averments in the complaint themselves disclose that the entire dispute revolves around the alleged payment of money, the circumstances in which such payment was made, and the alleged acknowledgment of liability by the persons named therein. 3. In order to sustain the allegation that such a large sum of Rs.65,00,000/- was paid, the petitioner would necessarily be required to establish, by producing cogent material, not only the factum of payment but also her financial capacity to part with such a substantial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14733 WP No. 25635 of 2025 amount. The question as to whether the petitioner, who claims to be engaged in a petty business, possessed the financial means to mobilize and invest a sum of Rs.65,00,000/-, whether such amount was in fact paid to the persons named in the complaint, the mode and manner of such payment, and whether the alleged acknowledgment of liability truly establishes a legally enforceable debt, are all matters which would require detailed examination of documentary and oral evidence. 4. These aspects essentially involve disputed questions of fact relating to financial transactions between private parties. The burden of establishing that the petitioner had the financial capacity to invest such a large sum and that the said amount was actually handed over to the persons named in the complaint can be effectively tested only in appropriate civil proceedings where parties would have the opportunity to lead evidence, produce documents, and subject witnesses to cross-examination. Such an enquiry, which essentially pertains to the proof of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14733 WP No. 25635 of 2025 a monetary transaction and the existence of a civil liability, cannot be undertaken in criminal proceedings, where the jurisdiction of the police is confined to investigation of cognizable offences and not to adjudication of complex questions relating to financial capacity or enforcement of alleged monetary claims. 5. In that view of the matter, the nature of the allegations contained in the complaint clearly indicates that the grievance of the petitioner predominantly arises out of a financial transaction, the veracity and enforceability of which can only be examined before a competent civil court. The question of financial capacity and the alleged payment of Rs.65,00,000/- being foundational issues, the burden to prove the same squarely rests upon the petitioner and the same can appropriately be adjudicated only in civil proceedings and not in criminal investigation. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14733 WP No. 25635 of 2025 6. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the police officers were justified in relegating petitioner to work out her remedy before a competent civil Court. 7. No indulgence is warranted. Petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to petitioner to avail remedy in a manner known to law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9