Recalled, after members of the Kharge family said they had not been heard: the Karnataka High Court’s order that let a private complaint over a Bengaluru civic amenity site proceed before the trial court in the Kharge family trust land case.
Bengaluru: Hearing a recall application filed by members of the Kharge family, the Karnataka High Court on Friday (October 16) recalled its earlier order permitting private complaint proceedings before the trial court to continue in the case over land allotments to the Siddhartha Vihar Trust, a trust linked to Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and his family. The family members said they had not been heard before that order was passed, and the Court will take up the matter again on October 30 [Vijayaraghava Marathe v. State of Karnataka and Others].
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who had heard the complainant’s earlier challenge in the same matter, passed the order.
The recall
The Kharge family members moved the recall application contending that the earlier order had been passed without hearing them. Justice Nagaprasanna allowed it and recalled the order. With that, the complainant’s petition against the August 11 order is open again before the High Court, and the parties are expected to be heard on it on October 30.
The reasons for the recall are not yet available, and this report will be updated when the order is uploaded.
The September order that has now been recalled
Justice Nagaprasanna had partly allowed the complainant’s petition in September. The High Court then set aside the part of the August 11 order directing the Section 223 route, held that the defect in the affidavit was curable, and sent the matter back to the Special Court with directions to let the complainant correct the affidavit and then consider the plea for investigation under Section 175 BNSS with its statutory safeguards. That order allowed the complaint proceedings to continue before the trial court. The High Court made clear at the time that it expressed no view on the merits of the allegations.
The complaint and the August 11 order
The case started as a private complaint by Vijayaraghava Marathe, president of the Lanchamukta Karnataka Vedike. It alleges that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) irregularly allotted a civic amenity site to the Siddhartha Vihar Trust, whose trustees include Mallikarjun Kharge, his wife Radhabai Kharge, and his sons Rahul Kharge and Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge. According to the complaint, the trust secured a 50 per cent concession on the lease amount by being treated as a Scheduled Caste entity, and later obtained an alternative site in a better location with the help of BDA officials.
The complaint also questions a separate allotment by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) at the Aerospace Park in Bengaluru. The trust and the family members deny the allegations.
The complainant had asked the Special Court for cases involving MPs and MLAs (the 81st Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, Bengaluru) to order a police investigation under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). By its order of August 11, that court declined to send the complaint for police investigation, citing a defect in the verification clause of the complainant’s affidavit, and chose instead to proceed under Section 223 BNSS, which governs examination of the complainant when a magistrate takes cognizance on a complaint.
The legal position
Under the BNSS, a magistrate faced with a complaint can either order the police to investigate under Section 175(3) or take cognizance and examine the complainant and witnesses under Section 223. Where the complaint is against a public servant, the law adds safeguards, including a chance for the public servant to put forward their version and a report from a superior officer, before cognizance is taken.
In its September order, the High Court had noted that complaints against public servants need special care because the evidence usually lies in official files rather than with a private complainant. The recall application turns on a basic rule of natural justice: a person whose rights may be affected by an order is ordinarily entitled to be heard before it is made.
The allegations in the complaint are untested. No court has expressed a view on their merits, and the persons named are presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Case Title: Vijayaraghava Marathe v. State of Karnataka and Others (descriptive title)
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna, High Court of Karnataka
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
Next Date: October 30, 2026