- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20702 WP No. 11844 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11844 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: B.M. NAGARAJ S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT BYRNAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN KUMAR H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TAMAKA, KOLAR DISTRICT KOLARAR - 563 101 2. INSPECTOR MALUR POLICE STATION MALUR THALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AS PER THE COMPLAINT DATED 30.12.2025 ANNEXURE-A AND DIRECTED THE RESPONDENTS POLICE TO REGISTERED THE CASE AND INVESTIGATE THE CASE TO FILE AN APPROPRIATE REPORT AND ETC. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20702 WP No. 11844 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER 1. The captioned petition is filed seeking direction against the respondents to act on a written complaint dated 30.12.2025 as per Annexure-A and direct the Station Officer to register a case and investigate. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate. 3. The petitioner claims to have lodged a detailed written complaint before the jurisdictional police, asserting that land bearing Sy.No.37 measuring 4 acres was originally granted in favour of one Sri. Birappa under an allotment order dated 26.08.1957. It is his specific case that the said grantee is his grandfather, who is stated to have died in the year 1972, and upon his demise, the property devolved upon his four sons. The gravamen of the complaint is that one Sri. Sampath Kumar, by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20702 WP No. 11844 of 2026 allegedly impersonating the original grantee and fabricating documents, has executed a gift deed in favour of his third daughter by projecting himself as Sri. Birappa, S/o Kariyappa, notwithstanding the admitted fact that the original grantee had expired decades ago. On these allegations, the petitioner seeks initiation of criminal action. 4. The principal grievance urged before this Court is that despite the submission of the said written complaint, the jurisdictional Station House Officer has failed to register a case and has instead issued a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR), allegedly on account of extraneous and political influence. It is contended that the complaint, on its plain reading, discloses commission of cognizable offences involving impersonation and forgery, and therefore, the inaction on the part of the police has compelled the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20702 WP No. 11844 of 2026 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. Perused the material on record, including the contents of the complaint. 6. Upon a careful and deeper examination of the averments made in the complaint, this Court is of the considered view that the entire edifice of the petitioner’s claim rests on his assertion of title through his grandfather, the original grantee. The allegations, though couched in the language of criminality such as impersonation and fabrication, in substance arise out of a competing claim over immovable property. The petitioner seeks to invalidate a gift transaction executed between private parties by questioning the very identity and authority of the executant. Such a challenge necessarily involves adjudication of disputed questions relating to title, succession, and legitimacy of documents, which are quintessentially matters falling within the domain of civil law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20702 WP No. 11844 of 2026 7. It is trite that before alleging criminality in relation to property transactions, the complainant must first establish a clear and undisputed right over the subject property. In the present case, the petitioner has not, at this stage, established his lawful title flowing from the original grant, nor has he demonstrated, through unimpeachable material, that the alleged impersonation is prima facie evident without a detailed inquiry into civil rights. The dispute, therefore, cannot be adjudicated in summary criminal proceedings, as it would inevitably require a full- fledged trial on issues of title and succession. 8. On a pointed query by this Court as to whether the petitioner has placed on record any certified copy of the grant order standing in the name of his grandfather, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, fairly submits that no such grant certificate or authenticated document evidencing the original allotment has been produced along with the petition. In the absence of foundational material establishing the very genesis of title, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20702 WP No. 11844 of 2026 this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to prima facie demonstrate a subsisting and legally cognizable right over the subject property. Unless and until the petitioner is able to substantiate, by producing cogent and unimpeachable material, that his grandfather was the lawful grantee and that such right has validly devolved upon him, any attempt to set the criminal law in motion alleging impersonation or fabrication of documents would be wholly premature. 9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the jurisdictional police were justified in treating the complaint as one not disclosing a clear cognizable offence and in issuing an NCR. Permitting criminal prosecution in such circumstances would amount to allowing parties to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute. 10. It is a settled principle of law that criminal law cannot be set in motion to settle private scores or to exert - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20702 WP No. 11844 of 2026 pressure in disputes arising out of property rights. Time and again, this Court has deprecated the tendency of litigants to convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings. In the present case, the allegations, when read in their entirety, unmistakably point towards a dispute over title and validity of conveyance, which must necessarily be adjudicated before a competent Civil Court. ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed, holding that the dispute projected in the complaint is predominantly civil in nature, involving adjudication of title and validity of transactions between private parties. (ii) The action of the jurisdictional police in issuing a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) does not warrant interference. (iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the competent Civil - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20702 WP No. 11844 of 2026 Court, in accordance with law, by seeking appropriate declaratory and consequential reliefs. (iv) It is made clear that any observations made herein are only for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition and shall not influence the civil proceedings, if any, instituted by the petitioner. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45