Mr Roshan Saldanha Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mr Roshan Saldanha Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIRs/crimes registered against the petitioners — founded on loan and property-sale transactions in which 'stamp duty', insurance and processing monies were paid on promises of sanctioning loans or conveying property — which the petitioners contend are purely civil money claims dressed with the colour of crime, ought to be quashed as an abuse of process of law, the complainants having been told to resort to civil suits for recovery of money. +1 more

Court's answer

A particular transaction can give rise to registration of two proceedings — civil and criminal — which can go on simultaneously; the submission that the matters are purely money transactions to be relegated to civil suits is repelled, as the criminal culpability is writ large albeit prima facie, and the existence of civil remedies does not preclude criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of an offence.

Ratio / Principle

Considering the complaints on the bedrock of the Apex Court's elucidation, what emerges is that the matter requires investigation in the least: the accused are said to have hoodwinked several people after luring them into respective transactions, there are 11 complaints by different complainants against the same accused, and there can be no question of interdicting the investigation in such cases.

Key takeaways

In seriously disputed questions of fact, interference by this Court with the crimes at the threshold would run foul of the plethora of Apex Court judgments; the FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all imputations and the projection of absence of nexus is a matter of investigation. Finding no merit, the petitions stand dismissed.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M. Nagaprasanna, J.), CAV order dated 27.03.2026: Eleven connected criminal petitions under S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS by Roshan Saldanha, his wife Dafney Neethu D'Souza and N. Chandrashekhar (with others as co-petitioners) seeking quashing of eleven FIRs — Cr.Nos.30, 22 and 40/2025 (CEN Crime PS, Mangaluru City), Crime Nos.115/2025 and 109/2025 (Kankanady Town PS), and Cr.Nos.148/2025, 139/2025, 153/2025, 147/2025, 169/2025 and 48/2024 (Chitradurga Town PS) — for offences under Ss.316(2), 316(5), 318(2), 318(3), 318(4), 61(2) and 111 r/w 3(5) BNS and Ss.34, 149, 406, 417 and 420 IPC, alleging payment of 'stamp duty', insurance and processing monies on false promises of sanctioning large loans or selling property. Held, dismissing the petitions: (i) a transaction may give rise to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings; availability of civil remedy is no bar where the allegations disclose essential ingredients of an offence, the criminal culpability being prima facie writ large; (ii) an FIR is not an encyclopaedia and must be investigated, particularly where eleven complaints by different complainants against the same accused reveal a common design; (iii) interference on seriously disputed questions of fact at the threshold would fall foul of Supreme Court precedent (Rocky; Anurag Bhatnagar; Kathyayini; Punit Beriwala; Neiharika Infrastructure; State of M.P. v. Kunwar Singh; Somjeet Mallick). Bail applications of the petitioners stood rejected; coordinate-Bench interim stays had interdicted investigation, which is now left to proceed.