[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Sharadhamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:14733
WP No. 25635 of 2025
HC-KAR
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:
Digitally signed by
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
CHAITHRA A REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HOME DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA
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,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:14733
WP No. 25635 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:14733
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:14733
HC-KAR
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
NC: 2026:KHC:14733
HC-KAR
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.
NC: 2026:KHC:14733
HC-KAR
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
