Writ jurisdiction cannot be used as a private investigative forum for disputed property and fraud allegations already before a civil court.

Writ jurisdiction was held unsuitable for a mandamus seeking criminal or forensic investigation into disputed property transactions where rival title claims and alleged financial improprieties were already subject to a civil suit. The Court treated the matter as dependent on contested facts requiring trial, evidence and cross-examination, and refused to conduct a parallel or roving enquiry on the basis of suspicion. It also noted that writ proceedings cannot be used as a private investigative forum or to collect material for leverage in civil litigation. The petition was therefore not maintainable on the facts presented and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking a mandamus for criminal and forensic investigation into disputed property transactions and alleged financial improprieties was maintainable in view of the pending civil suit and the disputed questions of fact.

Analysis: The petition was founded on allegations concerning rival title claims, suspected fabrication of documents, benami dealings, money laundering, tax evasion, and related corporate conduct. The dispute, however, turned on contested factual claims that were already the subject matter of a civil suit and required trial, evidence, and cross-examination. The Court declined to embark upon a parallel or roving enquiry through writ jurisdiction and also noted that the petitioner had not disclosed his own written statement in the suit. It held that the writ jurisdiction could not be used as a private investigative forum or as a means to gather material for leverage in civil litigation, and that the petition was based on suspicion rather than a justiciable factual foundation warranting such extraordinary relief.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable on the facts presented and was dismissed.

---