SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9456

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
SRI MANJAPPA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 134/2026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 134 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SRI MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O SRI. POOVAPA BUSINESS BY PROFESSION R/AT NO.22/2 HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD NEAR ARIKATTE, SOUNDARYA NAGARA SIDEDAHALLI NAGARASANDRA POST BENGALURU - 560 072.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME Digitally signed by VIDHANA SOUDHA CHAITHRA A DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI Location: HIGH COURT OF BENGALURU - 560 001 KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SCRETARY.

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

4. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER BY SPECIAL INVESTIGATION WING (CCB), BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

5. SMT. DEVIKA W/O RAMESH MOOLYA AGE MAJOR, R/AT NO.1000 'CHAITRA', HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD HAVANUR LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 073.

6. SHANKARA GOWDA JOGAREDDY S/O MUDDANNAGOWDA AGED MAJOR R/AT NO.1170, 3RD MAIN ROAD

9TH CROSS, MAHESHWARI NAGAR T. DASARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 057.

7. MR. SATHAPPA S/O CHANDRAKANT HUGUR AGE MAJOR R/AT NO.34-14/05, 2ND FLOOR 5TH CROSS, HANUMAN LAYOUT HESARGHATTA MAIN ROAD CHIKKA BANAVARA POST BENGALURU-560 090.

8. MR. NITIN GOWDA S/O HONNAPPA GOWDA AGE MAJOR R/AT 2ND FLOOR, KASABA HOBLI T. BEGUR VILLAGE AND POST NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST-562 123.

9. MR. S.C. MUDDA HANUME GOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKA GANGAPPA AGE MAJOR R/AT SIDEDHAHALLI VILLAGE YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI NAGASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 073.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;

SRI. G S RAJKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6;

SRI. D R RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ADARSH M LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R9)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES DATED 24.10.2025 BEARING NO. CCB/COMPLAINT/78/2025, 24.10.2025 BEARING NO. CCB/COMPLAINT/79/2025, 29.10.2025 BEARING CCB/COMPLAINT/78/2025, 20.12.2025 BEARING NO. CCB/COMPLAINT/78/2025 AND 24.12.2025 BEARING NO. CCB/COMPLAINT/79/2025 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURES- A TO E AND THEREBY QUASH THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO. CCB/COMPLAINT/78/2025 AND BEARING NO.

CCB/COMPLAINT/79/2025 VIDE ANNEXURES-A TO E.

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

Captioned petition is filed questioning the impugned notices bearing Nos.CCB/Complaint/78/2025 dated 24.10.2025, CCB/Complaint/79/2025 dated 24.10.2025, CCB/Complaint/78/2025 dated 29.10.2025, CCB/Complaint/78/2025 dated 20.12.2025 and CCB/Complaint/79/2025 dated 24.12.2025 issued by respondent No. 4, vide Annexures "A to E" and consequently to quash the initiation of proceedings bearing No. CCB/Complaint/78/25 and bearing No.CCB/Complaint/79/2025 vide Annexures "A to E". 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for private respondent No.9 and also learned AGA. Perused records.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Respondent No.5 has lodged three separate complaints before respondent No.3 – the Commissioner of Police, alleging that she is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy.No.10/2A (corresponding to old Sy.No.10/2), measuring 5.5 acres. It is further contended that her husband, Ramesh Moolya, is the owner of land measuring 6 acres and is also the owner of lands bearing old Sy.No.10/1, presently Sy.No.10/1A measuring 4.15 acres, and Sy.No.9 measuring 1.12 acres, all situated at Shidedahalli Village. According to the complainant, layouts were formed in the aforesaid lands and several sites were sold, while 63 sites of different dimensions were retained.

4. It is further alleged that one Sunitha, the owner of land bearing Sy.No.22/2 measuring 5.5 acres, formed a residential layout to an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top