E-Paper
Lokayukta submits case diary in court
Bengaluru's Lokayukta police submitted a case diary to a court regarding allegations against CM Siddaramaiah and family over housing site irregularities.
The state Lokayukta police submitted a sealed case diary to a special court in Bengaluru as it considers whether to accept or reject a closure report in the case against chief minister Siddaramaiah and members of his family.
The case concerns allegations of irregularities in the allotment of 14 housing sites by the Mysore Urban Development Authority to the chief minister’s wife, BM Parvathy, in 2021. The allotment was made in exchange for 3.16 acres of land that had been acquired by MUDA and that Parvathy had received as a gift from her brother in 2010.
The case diary was placed before judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat of the special court designated to try criminal cases against sitting and former members of Parliament and state legislatures on Tuesday. The court had sought the diary while hearing a protest petition filed by the Mysuru-based activist Snehamayi Krishna, who has challenged the Lokayukta police decision to file a B report, or closure report, citing lack of evidence.
The first information report in the case names Siddaramaiah, Parvathy, her brother Mallikarjun, and another person, Devaraj. The Lokayukta police filed the B report earlier this year, concluding that the allegations could not be substantiated.
Krishna has argued that the investigation suffered from serious deficiencies and that the agency failed to examine the role of former MUDA commissioners, despite being given sufficient time. During Tuesday’s hearing, he submitted a third additional written submission and filed a requisition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the investigating officer under the Contempt of Court Act. The court adjourned further hearing in the matter to January 5.
The submission of the case diary follows a series of directions and observations by the court expressing dissatisfaction with delays in the investigation. On December 18, the court said it would have to proceed on the basis of the report already filed, since the investigating agency had not placed any materials before it indicating progress in further investigation. At that stage, the court directed the special public prosecutor to furnish the case diary.
Earlier, the court had set December 18 as the deadline for the Lokayukta police to submit their final report. When the agency sought additional time, citing the need to obtain government sanction for prosecution, the court asked for the case diary to assess the status of the probe. While posting the matter to December 23, the court directed that the case diary files be furnished and permitted the complainant or the Enforcement Directorate to file rejoinders.
“The learned SPP of Karnataka Lokayukta has filed a status report in the case and has submitted that necessary sanction order is required to be obtained and the investigation is in the last stage,” the court noted, recording the submissions made on behalf of Lokayukta police.
Krishna opposed the request for more time, arguing that the agency had made no meaningful progress. The special public prosecutor countered that the state was ready to furnish the final copy of the report in a sealed cover and to place the case diary files before the court to demonstrate the credibility of the investigation.“Since the investigating agency has not placed any materials with respect to further investigation, the court will have to proceed on the basis of the report which is already filed before this court,” the special court observed while seeking the diary.
The case has its origins in a private complaint filed by Krishna last year, in which he accused Siddaramaiah and his family of deriving illegal benefits worth ₹56 crore through the MUDA land allotment. According to the complaint, Parvathy received 14 housing sites in exchange for the 3.16 acre parcel of land acquired by MUDA.
After the special court directed a probe into the allegations, Siddaramaiah’s family returned the 14 sites to MUDA last year. The Lokayukta police nevertheless proceeded with the investigation and, in February 2025, filed a closure report stating that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims made by the complainant.
In April, the special court kept its decision on whether to accept or reject the B report in abeyance. At the same time, it allowed the Lokayukta police to continue their investigation until the filing of a final report, as sought by the agency. The court also permitted the Enforcement Directorate to continue its parallel investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, after the ED filed its own protest petition against the Lokayukta police closure report.
