Mr Hanumanthappa Lingadalli v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Apr 2026WP/8109/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Magadum J, 07.04.2026) allows WP 8109/2026 (GM-RES) and quashes State notification dated 31.01.2026 (No. E-RD 11 GRC 2026, Annexure-A) attaching petitioner's properties under KPIDFE Act framework; CID final report in Crime No.82/2019 (Udyambag PS; Sections 417, 420 r/w 34 IPC; complaint of 04.07.2019) had dropped petitioner from charge sheet; attachment held manifestly arbitrary, non-application of mind, without jurisdiction, abuse of statutory power; objection re non-inclusion of KPIDFE Competent Authority as party rejected; writ of certiorari under Articles 226 & 227; consequential relief follows.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned notification dated 31.01.2026 bearing No. E-RD 11 GRC 2026 (Annexure-A) quashed; consequential relief, if any, to follow in favour of the petitioner. ¶¶58

Mr Hanumanthappa Lingadalli Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned notification dated 31.01.2026 bearing No. E-RD 11 GRC 2026 (Annexure-A) quashed; consequential relief, if any, to follow in favour of the petitioner.

¶¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the notification dated 31.01.2026 bearing No. E-RD 11 GRC 2026 (Annexure-A) attaching the petitioner's properties, issued despite the CID final report exonerating him, is sustainable in law. +1 more

¶¶30

Court's answer

The CID, after a detailed and comprehensive investigation, unequivocally dropped the petitioner from the array of accused, recording that he was not involved in the alleged offences; such a conclusion of a specialized agency cannot be lightly disregarded or brushed aside by the State.

¶¶41

Ratio / Principle

The preliminary objection that the validity of the impugned notification cannot be examined unless the Competent Authority constituted under the KPIDFE Act is arrayed as a party respondent was rejected.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

Issuing the impugned notification attaching the petitioner's properties despite his exoneration and conscious omission from the charge sheet is wholly incongruous, runs contrary to the foundation of the final report, suffers from manifest arbitrariness and reflects non-application of mind to the material on record.ratio¶¶43
Having been given a clean chit in the investigation under the KPIDFE Act, the petitioner has a legitimate and enforceable legal right to assail the impugned notification; continued attachment of his properties and initiation or contemplation of coercive measures would be wholly illegal, without jurisdiction, and a clear abuse of statutory powers.ratio¶¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Property attachment under KPIDFE Act quashed after CID clean chit — High Court of Karnataka (Sachin Shankar Magadum J, single judge) allowed W.P. No. 8109 of 2026 (GM-RES), filed under Articles 226 & 227 seeking certiorari against the State notification dated 31.01.2026 bearing No. E-RD 11 GRC 2026 (Annexure-A) attaching the petitioner's properties. Crime No.82/2019 of Udyambag Police Station (registered on a complaint dated 04.07.2019 under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC) was transferred to the CID, whose final report (Annexure-E) categorically found the petitioner not involved and dropped his name from the array of accused. Rejecting the preliminary objection that the Competent Authority under the KPIDFE Act had to be joined as a party respondent, the Court held the post-exoneration attachment manifestly arbitrary and reflective of non-application of mind, that continued attachment and coercive measures would be wholly illegal, without jurisdiction and an abuse of statutory power, and quashed the notification, consequential relief following in favour of the petitioner.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8109 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR HANUMANTHAPPA LINGADALLI S/O SHIVAPPA LINGADAHALII AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT CHENDINAHAL YELBURGA KOPPAL KARNATAKA 583237

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT SERVICES - 1, SSLR & SPECIAL CELL MS BUILDING BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

&RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR ,AGA)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE NOTIFICATION DATED - 31.01.2026 BEARING NO. E-RD 11 GRC 2026 AT ANNX-A ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT STATE AS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The captioned petition is filed assailing the notification dated 31.01.2026 bearing E-RD 11 GRC 2026 as per Annexure-A issued by respondent/State insofar as petitioner's properties are concerned.

¶25

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶26

The petitioner submits that he was appointed as a Branch Development Manager in M/s. Janasneha Real Wealth Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Koppal. It is stated that on the basis of a complaint dated 04.07.2019 lodged by one Smt. Vijayalakshmi Tavanappa Desai, Udyambag Police Station registered a case in Crime No.82/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, <IPC=). It is further averred that subsequently, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Udyambag Police Station, by communication dated 16.11.2019, sought permission from the jurisdictional

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Judicial Magistrate to invoke the provisions of Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (for short, <KPIDFE Act=). The petitioner contends that the said crime was thereafter transferred to the CID for the purpose of further investigation.

¶30

The gravamen of the petitioner9s grievance is that upon completion of investigation, the CID has submitted its final report categorically recording a finding that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offences and has accordingly dropped his name from the array of accused. Despite such exoneration in the final report, the respondent/State, in complete disregard of the said material, has proceeded to issue the impugned notification, as evidenced at Annexure-<A=, attaching the properties of the petitioner, which action is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Per contra, learned Additional Government

¶35

Advocate vehemently opposed the petition contending that in the absence of the Competent Authority constituted under the KPIDFE Act being arrayed as a party respondent, no effective directions can be issued and the validity of the impugned notification cannot be examined by this Court. This Court is not persuaded to accept the said preliminary objection. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it would be apposite to refer to the final report submitted by the CID, produced at Annexure-<E=. The relevant extract of the said report reads as follows:

¶36

��Î �¾�	� �Ý�	½¬Í®�¬®! "�#®$% &¬¬Í '¬�Î(Ý) �¯+ -Î+.
�¾�¾�	��¬Í®�Î�	�Î¾Î0¿1 2Î3."45Î6 7�®8¯ 89ÎÝ�¾7;¾<¼Í�¾.;Î.
�ÎÝ�®��Î	��ÎÝ¿	2011 ;ÎÝ �¾"¬"� ¬Í0> ;Î> ?Î½¾A B�� CDÝ¼F
¿�¾/Any remarks	special	��®Í ;ÎÝ®7 �¾��ÎÎ�Í C ¬�¬¼ 2013 ;ÎÝ �¾"¬"� �ÎÎ®!¿ �¾IÎJÎ 89ÎÝ�¾7�¾< CK�
including	reasons	�¾��ÎÎ��¼Í�¾.�Î. 2013 ;ÎÝ �¾"8�® 2017
for not sheeting:	charge	�¾"¬½�ÎJÎ �Î¾¼ 8½�)L®ÍM C ¬�¬¼ �Î¾¼�Î� �¾N;¾B 8Ý�¼Í�¾.�Î. ¼®� 7�®8¯ ½¯�¾L¬
		½0½P¾¼�Î� ¼�¬�¯®RS��Î &¬¬ I¾�ÎJÎ T¾½U9ÎÝ ½¯ ½J¾�½VÎT¾<¼Í½UW¾�. P¾#Î &¬¬ ºÉ¼�¬"� T¾½U9ÎÝ LX�¾L.#¿¬Í( Y�ÝWL¼Í½U®Í 7�Í¬¼®

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

�¾¼¯ &¬¬¬Í( C�ÎÎÝ® ®ZS[�® �ÎÞ]^¾<9Î .

¶40

On a careful perusal of the extracted portion of the final report submitted by the CID, as produced at Annexure-

¶41

<E=, this Court finds that the name of the present petitioner has been unequivocally dropped from the array of accused. The Investigating Agency, after conducting a detailed and comprehensive investigation, has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offences. Such a conclusion, arrived at by a specialized agency like the CID, cannot be lightly disregarded or brushed aside by the respondent/State.

¶42

Once the competent Investigating Agency has

¶43

exonerated the petitioner and has consciously omitted his name from the charge sheet, the subsequent action of the respondent/State in issuing the impugned notification attaching the petitioner9s property is wholly incongruous and runs contrary to the very foundation of the final report. The impugned action, therefore, suffers from manifest arbitrariness and reflects non-application of mind

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

to the material placed on record, particularly the findings

¶47

recorded by the CID.

¶48

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has a legitimate and enforceable legal right to assail the impugned notification.

¶49

If the petitioner has been given a clean chit in the course of investigation under the provisions of the KPIDFE Act, the continued attachment of his properties and the initiation or contemplation of coercive measures against him under the KPIDFE Act would be wholly illegal, without jurisdiction, and in clear abuse of the statutory powers vested in the authorities.

¶50

This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the impugned notification, as evidenced at Annexure-<A=, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The same is liable to be set aside as being arbitrary, unjust and contrary to the material on record, particularly the final report submitted by the CID.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:19303 WP No. 8109 of 2026

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds

¶55

to pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed .

¶58

(ii) The impugned notification dated 31.01.2026 bearing No. E-RD 11 GRC 2026, produced at Annexure-<A=, issued by the respondent/State, is hereby quashed.

¶59

(iii) Consequential relief, if any, shall follow in favour of the petitioner.

¶60

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶61

ALB

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Mr Hanumanthappa Lingadalli v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Hanumanthappa Lingadalli v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.A. Anandkrishna Vs the Prescribed Authority

G Surendra Gupta Vs Smt. Kavitha Vinod

Somashekara @ Renu Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt. Ramakka Vs State of Karnataka

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kumari Sahara Banu

Mr Shanawaz Siddiqui Vs the Deputy Commisioner