Sri.B.N Monappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri.B.N Monappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer for transfer of investigation to respondent No.4 (CBI) rejected for want of merit; writ petition allowed in part with directions that respondent No.3 (SHO) complete the investigation expeditiously in accordance with law, under the oversight and monitoring of respondent No.2 (DCP) to ensure fairness, transparency and adherence to due process.

Issue for consideration

Whether the investigation ordered by the VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 29.11.2025 in the petitioner's unnumbered PCR should be transferred to respondent No.4 (Central Bureau of Investigation). +1 more

Court's answer

Transfer of investigation to the CBI is not to be ordered as a matter of course or routine.

Ratio / Principle

No extraordinary or exceptional circumstance is disclosed in the complaint warranting deviation from the normal rule that investigation should be carried out by the jurisdictional police.

Key takeaways

Mere apprehension, without substantive material, cannot be a ground to transfer the investigation to a premier agency like the CBI; the petitioner did not demonstrate that the State investigating agency is incapable or unwilling to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.ratio¶53
Respondent No.3 (Station House Officer, Sanjaynagar Police Station) shall proceed with the investigation in accordance with law and ensure that it is completed expeditiously.ratio¶62
Respondent No.2 (Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru North Division) shall oversee and monitor the investigation carried out by respondent No.3 to ensure fairness, transparency and adherence to due process, addressing the petitioner's apprehension while preserving the statutory scheme of State police investigation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking transfer to the CBI of the investigation ordered by the VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 29.11.2025 in an unnumbered PCR filed by the petitioner. Held: transfer of investigation to the CBI is an extraordinary power, to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances, as laid down in State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, (2010) 3 SCC 571, K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID, (2013) 12 SCC 480, and Romila Thapar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 753; the CBI (which opposed the petition, contending the allegations disclosed at best extortion coupled with use of forged documents investigable by the State police) cannot be directed to investigate every offence. The complaint disclosed no extraordinary or exceptional circumstance; the petitioner produced no material showing the State agency incapable or unwilling to investigate fairly; mere apprehension without substantive material is no ground for transfer. Petition allowed in part: SHO, Sanjaynagar Police Station to complete the investigation expeditiously in accordance with law, under the supervision and monitoring of the DCP, Bengaluru North Division, to ensure fairness, transparency and due process.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17756 WP No. 37557 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

WRIT PETITION NO. 37557 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SRI. B.N MONAPPA S/O LATE B. K. NACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 128, 3RD MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K.S. PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY POLICE, I NFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU NORTH DIVISION, NEAR SAVINDHANA CIRCLE, YESHWANTPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022.

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17756 WP No. 37557 of 2025

HC-KAR

SANJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION, SANJAYNAGAR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 094.

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION PLOT NO. 5-B, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTIUTTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND/OR ANY SUCH/OTHER WRIT OR ORDER TRANSFERRING THE INVESTIGATION ORDERED BY THE VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ON 29.11.2025 IN THE UNNUMBERED PCR FILED BY THE PETITIONER, TO THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 WITH A DIRECTION TO REGISTER THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND INVESTIGATE AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17756 WP No. 37557 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

The captioned writ petition is instituted seeking a direction for transfer of investigation in respect of proceedings arising out of an unnumbered private complaint (PCR) lodged by the petitioner, with a further prayer to entrust the investigation to respondent No.4– Central Bureau of Investigation.

Upon service of notice, respondent No.4 has

entered appearance and filed a detailed statement of objections stoutly opposing the relief sought. It is contended that the proceedings are presently at the stage of an unnumbered PCR and, therefore, the question of transferring investigation does not arise at this premature stage. Respondent No.4 has further averred that the Central Bureau of Investigation is a premier investigating agency constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 and is primarily entrusted with investigation of serious offences, particularly those

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17756 WP No. 37557 of 2025

HC-KAR

involving corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and matters of national or inter-State ramifications. It is contended that the allegations, even if accepted on their face value, disclose at best offences relating to extortion coupled with use of forged documents, which can be effectively investigated by the State police machinery. It is thus asserted that no exceptional circumstances are made out warranting transfer of investigation to respondent No.4, and on this ground alone, the petition insofar as it seeks such transfer deserves to be rejected.

This Court, having heard the learned counsel

appearing for the parties and upon a meticulous examination of the complaint produced at Annexure–J, is not persuaded to accept the contention of the petitioner that the investigation requires to be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The law is fairly well settled that transfer of investigation to the CBI is not to be ordered as a matter of course or routine. The Hon’ble

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17756 WP No. 37557 of 2025

HC-KAR

Supreme Court State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights &

Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 571 has held that the power to direct investigation by CBI is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and only in exceptional circumstances where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in the investigation. Similarly, in K.V. Rajendran v. Superintendent of Police, CBCID South Zone, Chennai and others,

(2013) 12 SCC 480 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that such transfer can be ordered only when the Court is satisfied that the investigation by the State police lacks credibility or where the incident has national or international ramifications, or involves such complexities that require investigation by a specialized agency. It has been further reiterated in Romila Thapar

v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 753 that CBI cannot be directed to investigate every offence, and such

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17756 WP No. 37557 of 2025

HC-KAR

directions are to be issued only in rare and exceptional cases.

Applying the aforesaid principles to the case on hand, this Court is of the considered view that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose any such extraordinary or exceptional circumstance warranting deviation from the normal rule that investigation should be carried out by the jurisdictional police. The petitioner has not demonstrated any material to establish that the State investigating agency is either incapable or unwilling to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. Mere apprehension, without substantive material, cannot be a ground to transfer the investigation to a premier agency like the CBI.

However, this Court cannot be oblivious to the apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding fairness of the investigation. While such apprehension, by itself, may not justify transfer of investigation, the same

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:17756 WP No. 37557 of 2025

HC-KAR

can be adequately addressed by ensuring supervisory oversight by a senior police officer. Such a course would balance the interests of the petitioner while at the same time preserving the statutory scheme governing investigation by the State police.

In that view of the matter, without finding any merit in the prayer seeking transfer of investigation to respondent No.4, this Court deems it appropriate to issue directions to ensure that the investigation is conducted in a fair, impartial and expeditious manner under the supervision of a higher authority.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed in part ;

ii. Respondent No.3–Station House Officer shall proceed with the investigation in accordance with law and ensure that the same is completed expeditiously;

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:17756 WP No. 37557 of 2025

HC-KAR

iii. Respondent No.2–Deputy Commissioner of Police shall oversee and monitor the investigation carried out by respondent No.3 so as to ensure fairness, transparency and adherence to due process.

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

HDK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40