Why A Police Complaint Has Been Filed Against Krishan Rattan, Founding Partner Of Ankiti Bose At Terra-Invest

The police complaint against Krishan Rattan is not a rumour about his biography. It is a request, under Section 173 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, that Tilak Marg register a first information report on the papers of his own defamation suit. Those papers were served twice. They do not match. The notarisation certificate he relies on does not match them either. He and Ankiti Bose are founding partners at Terra-Invest. That is the documented relationship. The complaint is the new document. No public FIR number for it was locatable on 4 October 2026.

Rattan is about 47. Companies House records a Krishan Rattan, British, born November 1978, resident in England. His own filings in CS (OS) 815 of 2026 give his father’s name as Keshav Rattan and his email as [email protected]. Terra-Invest calls him a founding partner who has “raised, deployed and overseen transactions worth over USD 12 billion.” Kairoswealth, where he is founder and chairman, rounds the same career up to “over USD 13 billion.” The two biographies cannot both be exact. Neither figure is an audited result. Both are his.

Who filed, against whom, and for what

Nitin Naresh, 40, son of Naresh Singh, of D-12, Gali No. 4, Syndicate Enclave, Raghu Nagar, near Dabri Mor, New Delhi 110045, director of Nine Network Pvt. Ltd., publisher of inventiva.co.in, has asked the Station House Officer of Police Station Tilak Marg to register an FIR. He is Defendant No. 1 in Krishan Rattan v. Nitin Naresh & Ors. His number on the complaint is +91 97173 29850. His email is [email protected]. The date line is blank. The copy reviewed is unsigned. Page 132 is the heading “Aadhaar card of Mr Nitin Naresh,” with no card behind it.

He names Rattan as Proposed Accused No. 1: the man in whose name, at whose instance, and for whose benefit the documents were made, altered, served and filed. Proposed Accused No. 2 onwards are the persons, unknown to him, who between 1 and 10 September 2026 prepared two versions of the suit compilation, affixed images of Rattan’s signature and of a notary’s signature and stamp, altered documents after they had been signed, removed a signature from an altered document, and caused the results to be served and e-filed. He says their identities sit in the High Court e-filing account, the service emails, the records of NotarEase, operated by Kommit Infotech LLP on Zoho Sign, and the metadata of the PDFs.

The notary named on the documents is Shivani Biswal, [email protected]. The complaint says her role requires investigation and makes no allegation against her beyond what the records show. It invokes no provision on false evidence. That, Naresh writes, lies with the High Court under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS, and is being pursued there by a separate application filed on 24 September 2026. This complaint is about forged documents and a misused electronic signature. He cites Kailash Mangal v. Ramesh Chand (2015) 15 SCC 729 for that split, and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370 for the rule that the bar on a private prosecution applies only after a document is in the custody of the court.

One date, two compilations

On 1 September 2026, Rattan is said to have signed the plaint, sworn the supporting affidavit, verified it, signed the certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, and executed the vakalatnama, all through an online service styled NotarEase. On 8 September, Naresh was served Version A, 242 pages, affidavit and certificates dated 1 September. On 10 September he was served Version B. The contents differ. The affidavit, the verification and the certificates do not. They are still dated 1 September. Naresh says both files have remained in his custody and that he has not altered them. He attaches Version A as Annexure-1, Version B as Annexure-2, and the screenshots of the altered urgent application as Annexure-3.

He says the filing bears fourteen marks reading “ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED BY KRISHAN RATTAN,” and that not one is a signature. Each is a picture. Several sit on pages that formed no part of any notarised instrument. Page 46 of the PDF asserts that the pleadings were electronically signed and that the signatures are embedded. A genuine digital signature records the byte range it has signed and stores a hash. Alter the file and the viewer reports the change. That is the point of it. Naresh says neither file contains a signature object, a signature field or a byte range, and that the signatures panel of a standard viewer shows nothing. A signature that cannot be validated has never been signed. An image of one proves only that someone had the image.

The urgent application is the exhibit that does not need a laboratory. Version A, served 8 September, dated 1 September, asks the Registrar to treat the suit as urgent because the plaintiff seeks “urgent directions qua restoration of possession of the Suit Property.” It bears an image of the plaintiff’s signature and counsel’s. Version B, served 10 September, same date, drops the possession sentence. It asks only that the civil suit be treated as urgent because the plaintiff seeks interim reliefs in the accompanying applications. The plaintiff’s signature is gone. Counsel’s remains. This is a defamation suit. There is no suit property. A possession template went out under a signature, was rewritten, and the signature was removed rather than a new oath being taken. The complaint calls that a document made false after execution, within Section 335 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the use of it within Section 340(2).

The notarial stamp on page 46 says “Stamp only valid if Notary E-Sign is present.” Naresh says no electronic signature exists in the document. The plaintiff’s signature, the NotarEase mark, the notary’s electronic signature and the stamp are, on his account, loose image objects that can be clicked, dragged, copied or deleted. Annexure-4 is the screenshot. A stamp that can be copied is not a seal. A seal that can be deleted was never applied.

Twelve pages, and three cities

The affidavit at page 47 carries a QR code. Scanned, it opens a NotarEase page: verification code WXK-MQK-2YY, notarised by Shivani Biswal on 1 September 2026, one signatory, page count 12. Annexure-5 is that certificate. The filing runs to 242 pages. The pleadings, printed pages 13 to 48, are 36. The pages bearing a NotarEase stamp number six. Twelve matches none of these. On the plaintiff’s own verification page, reached through the plaintiff’s own QR code, the document filed is not the document notarised. The pages in the complaint also show a block reading “Digitally signed by Krishan Rattan,” dated 2026.09.01 00:00:00 +05’30, Notary ID 1A2B3C4D, and a Zoho Sign document ID, DFBF96020-W29BOYUOTWIW45AQTHO9Z155FLDEJKG3JLHTH65AACS. Midnight exactly, and an identification string of 1A2B3C4D, are what a sample form looks like. They are not what a completed notarial act looks like.

The places do not survive a reading. The advocate’s defect remarks at page 6 put him in Dubai. The verification at printed page 46 and the affidavit address at printed page 47 put him at 38 Piper Building, Peterborough, London, SW6 3EF. The verification under the notarial seal at printed page 48 says Singapore, 1 September 2026. SW6 3EF is Fulham, not Peterborough. The affidavit spells it “Peterborouh” and “Sw63ef.” No remote-notarisation procedure is described in 242 pages. One man cannot stand in three countries on one day. At least two of those entries are false. Which two is a question for the notarial register, not for a press release.

The complaint says the certificate of completion at page 240 records the authentication type for both signatories as “None,” though the service offers SMS and email one-time passwords, WhatsApp, EU-eID and knowledge-based authentication, and that the same certificate is attached to both versions. That page was pleaded. It was not reproduced as a readable exhibit in the copy reviewed. It is the first document a competent investigator would seize. A certificate that says nobody was authenticated is not a certificate that somebody was.

The sections, the prayers, and the holes in his own draft

The sections invoked are 335, 336(1) to (3), 337, 338, 339, 340(2) and 341 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, read with 61(2), 62 and 3(5), Section 318 read with Section 62, and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act. Section 336(3), forgery for the purpose of cheating, and Section 337, forgery of a court record or of a certificate purporting to be made by a public servant, are pleaded as cognizable and non-bailable. He cites Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj (2018) 7 SCC 581 for the rule that forgery lies against the maker, and then contradicts himself: paragraph 34 says he names no one, prayer A asks for an FIR against Rattan. Section 338, hung on a standard vakalatnama clause about receiving money, is a stretch. So is treating a pasted picture as identity theft under Section 66C without proof that the notary’s actual electronic signature, rather than a drawing of a stamp, was used. The 12-page certificate, the rewritten urgent application, the removed signature and the two defendant lists are not a stretch. They are on the page.

The prayers ask for an FIR under those sections, a free copy under Section 173(2), a Zero FIR if Tilak Marg is the wrong station, a 14-day preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3) if one is insisted on, with preservation notices in the meantime, an officer not below Inspector under Section 78 of the IT Act, assisted by the Cyber Police Station, New Delhi District, forensic examination of NEKR01SEPT2026.pdf and both served versions at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, or a CERT-In examiner, statements under Section 180 from the notary, Kommit Infotech, Zoho Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and the persons who compiled and e-filed, a report under Section 193, and a copy of the findings to the competent authority under the Notaries Act, 1952 and to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court. If no FIR is registered, he reserves a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 173(4) and to the Magistrate under Section 175(3). He also cites Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 for mandatory registration where the information discloses a cognizable offence.

Two defects in his own drafting will be used against him, and should be. Prayer A says the unknown persons are described in paragraph 3. They are in paragraph 4. Prayer C says the persons to be summoned are listed in paragraph 26. They are in paragraphs 53 to 55. The phrase “be pleased be pleased” appears twice. Paragraph 57 calls the notary “he.” The person named is Ms Shivani Biswal. None of that repairs the two served copies. A sloppy complaint can still attach a document that does not match itself.

The suit he was using those papers to bring

The suit seeks a declaration that articles on inventiva.co.in are false and defamatory, injunctions against publication, takedown, de-indexing by Google LLC and Google India, an apology, costs, and Rs 2,00,00,000 in damages. Court fee on the damages head is pleaded at Rs 1,97,544. The other reliefs are valued at Rs 200 each, with Rs 20 in fee. Counsel is Siddhesh Kotwal, enrolment MAH/4037/2008, J-1, first floor, Upasana Building, 1 Hailey Road, [email protected], mobile 9871656128. The complaint does not accuse him by name. Both versions of the plaint still say “her professional work” and injury to “her reputation.” The plaintiff is a man. The pronoun is leftover from another pleading.

The comparison of the two served plaints shows more than the urgent application. On 8 September, Google is Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 and a named contributor is Defendant No. 4. On 10 September the contributors are Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and Google is Defendant Nos. 6 and 7. Paragraph numbering shifts. The valuation clause is rewritten, and the later copy adds a separate court-fee line for the apology. Both still claim verification on 1 September. A defendant list is not a draft. Once it is verified, it is a statement. Two lists, one date, is two statements.

On 14 September 2026, Justice Sachin Datta restrained defendants 1 to 5 from publishing any further article containing defamatory imputations against Rattan. The order, as reported by ANI and carried by the Economic Times, the Statesman and Times Now, says the restraint is not to be read as stopping a fact-finding exercise on the allegations against him. Replies were due in four weeks. The Joint Registrar date is 13 October 2026. The court date is 29 October 2026. The order does not decide the articles. It does not decide this complaint. His pleading, on ANI’s account of 29 September, referred to an earlier order in a separate suit by his Terra-Invest founding partner, Ankiti Uday Bose.

The ventures, in the order the registries have them

The career before the companies is his own account, repeated on Terra-Invest and Kairoswealth. Morgan Stanley, then emerging markets at Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, then managing director and global head of alternative capital solutions at Société Générale, a desk he says delivered more than US$200 million a year to the bank. He claims the first traded index tracker in Africa, the first emerging-market inflation-linked bond, and early work on NAV financing for asset managers. He says he has been a financial-services entrepreneur in Europe and Asia since 2012, and a senior adviser to Franklin Park, an affiliate of Guggenheim Partners. None of those revenue and transaction figures is a filed account. They are a biography. A biography that cannot decide between 12 billion and 13 billion is a biography that has not been checked.

The English companies are on Companies House. Voltaire Capital (United Kingdom) Ltd, company 08099043, correspondence address at various times 11 Old Jewry and 4 Lombard Street: he was appointed director on 25 July 2014, resigned 29 January 2016, appointed again on 29 February 2016. The company went into creditors’ voluntary liquidation on 17 May 2019 and was dissolved on 23 April 2025. Voltaire Capital Holdings Ltd, company 09958231, 14 Berkeley Street: director from 29 February 2016, resigned 29 March 2019, company still active on the register extract. He is Defendant No. 2 in Voltaire Capital Holdings Ltd & Ors v. Eric Watson & Ors, Claim No. CL-2022-000699. Mr Justice Bryan’s judgment of 24 April 2026, [2026] EWHC 1103 (Comm), describes US$100 million civil fraud claims, recites the claimants’ case that the Gemini group put in about US$132 million between 2014 and 2019 of which about US$101 million was lost, and records the pleaded contention that investors were led to believe Voltaire was controlled principally by him. A ten-week trial was listed from 12 October 2026. On 28 July 2025, in [2025] EWHC 1948 (Comm), Nigel Cooper KC ordered him to pay the claimants’ costs of a disclosure application, summarily assessed at £63,267, after a 10 per cent reduction on a starting figure of £70,297. The claimants had asked for £94,159.75. On 5 August 2026 Mr Justice Jacobs made a consent order permitting discontinuance against him. A notice of discontinuance was filed on 6 August 2026. Terra-Invest called it a resolution. Discontinuance is not a judgment. There is no finding of fraud. There is also no trial and no published term of the bargain. A consent order ends a claim. It does not erase the caption in which he was Defendant No. 2.

The Indian register, DIN 07998639, is shorter and worse. ZaubaCorp lists him as director of Distribution Logistics Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. from 19 April 2019, Voltaire Securities Pvt. Ltd. from 29 September 2018, Voltaire Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. from 30 December 2020, and Deep Blue Advisors Pvt. Ltd. from 7 September 2022. Tofler, on an older extract, still showed him at Voltaire Advisory and Voltaire Securities, and associated him with Rajiv Ramesh Lulla, DIN 06384402. Terra-Invest says he resigned from DLI by letter of 19 June 2025, effective 20 June 2025. Take that date. On 14 May 2026 the NCLT Mumbai Bench admitted Bank of India’s petition, CP(IB)/1078(MB)/2025, and started corporate insolvency resolution. Prashant Jain was appointed interim resolution professional. The IBBI list of creditors as on 6 June 2026 provisionally admitted secured financial claims of ₹9,93,25,78,707.28. Total claims in that snapshot sat above ₹1,018 crore. Employee operational claims of about ₹17.69 crore were received and not admitted in that table. Resignation eleven months before admission answers the charge that he was still a director. It does not answer the creditor list, and it does not answer the resolution professional’s audit under Sections 43 to 51 and 66 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. That audit is the document. A team page is not. The ₹993.26 crore is a claim against the company. It is not a personal decree against him. Pretending the distinction makes the directorship uninteresting is public relations.

Mount Row is the vehicle he describes as a global alternative asset manager with over US$1.2 billion under management, across energy and infrastructure. Trade press has reported a Mount Row purchase of a Fujairah terminal at about US$124 million and a Dubai claim of about AED 100 million against it. Those are reports, not a judgment read for this piece. Kairoswealth, Abu Dhabi, lists him as founder and chairman. Terra-Invest’s biography of Bose says Mount Row led a US$25 million round in Kairoswealth in 2023. Terra-Invest itself claims offices in London, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Miami and Singapore, a track record of “US$12 billion-plus transactions led by our partners,” and, in launch coverage, a portfolio of about US$230 million and a 2025 assets target of US$2.5 billion. Corporate claims. Not an audit. A firm that sells “intelligent capital” on a five-city letterhead should be able to produce one filed number that matches the letterhead.

Ankiti Bose, and where the two files actually meet

The only documented connection between Krishan Rattan and Ankiti Bose is the firm they now share. Terra-Invest lists both as founding partners, with H.E. Kirk Wagar, United States ambassador to Singapore from 2013 to 2017. Bose’s biography on that site says she co-conceptualised Kairoswealth with Rattan and Vincent Teyssier, and that she works with Mount Row Advisors on strategic platforms. Kairoswealth’s own site names Rattan and Wagar and does not mention her. In February 2024 a Gulf News release described Terra-Invest as the venture-builder arm of Mount Row and did not mention Bose. Four months later the launch coverage presented it as a partnership: Business Today named Bose and Wagar, DNA India had her teaming up with Rattan, a Khaleej Times programme named all three. No shareholding, payment, or personal relationship between them appears in any registry or court file located for this piece. Searches found no record of a marriage. There is no documented role for her at Mount Row beyond the sentence on the Terra-Invest page.

What is on the record is the sequence of the litigation. She filed CS (OS) 756 of 2026. Justice Subramonium Prasad, on 24 August 2026, restrained defendants 1 to 5 from disseminating specified articles on LinkedIn or other social media and from further articles that would restrain her exercise of legal rights. The order does not decide the articles. It was listed before the Joint Registrar on 7 October. His suit followed, verified on 1 September, citing hers. The interim order in his case followed on 14 September. ANI’s copy of 29 September records that his pleading referred to her order. Two founding partners. Two plaints. One platform. One notary certificate that says 12 pages.

A separate interim order of 8 June 2026, by Additional District Judge Harjyot Singh Bhalla in the South-West district court at Dwarka, CS DJ ADJ 744/2026, directed removal of a 30 May 2026 article about Bose and restrained further defamatory publication. On 16 July 2026 that court recorded that she had prima facie shown breach. Terra-Invest has said it is pursuing civil and criminal proceedings against Naresh and Inventiva in India and the UAE, and has used the words blackmail and extortion. Those are allegations. They are not findings. The same standard applies in both directions. A founding partner who asks a court to police what is written about him has now had a police station asked to police what he filed.

What should happen before the logs die

The Joint Registrar will not hash a PDF. NotarEase, Zoho Sign and the High Court e-filing system will overwrite. A preservation direction under Section 94 BNSS costs nothing and protects both sides. The notarial register entry for 1 September 2026, the 12-page file behind WXK-MQK-2YY, the IP address and device on every signature, and a hash of NEKR01SEPT2026.pdf against the 8 September file, the 10 September file and the e-filed set will end the argument about the paper. If the hashes match, the complaint fails on its central point. If they do not, the Registry was given a compilation the notary’s own certificate does not describe, under a date and a place the documents cannot keep straight.

Section 336(3) and Section 337 are cognizable. Lalita Kumari does not require the police to believe the complainant. It requires registration when the information discloses a cognizable offence, and the two served copies are the information. A preliminary enquiry under Section 173(3), if one is opened, has an outer limit of 14 days. The records should be frozen on day one, not on day fourteen. The same demand applies to the Section 379 application already before the High Court, and to the resolution professional’s audit at DLI. Open files do not improve with age. A commercial suit is not a substitute for a register entry, and a team page is not a substitute for a trial. Enforcement agencies that can freeze a log in an afternoon should not take a season to decide whether two PDFs are the same file.

Disclaimer

Allegations remain allegations. This complaint seeks registration of an FIR. It is not a charge-sheet, not a finding, and not a conviction. As of 4 October 2026, no court of law has convicted Krishan Rattan of forgery, cheating, identity theft, or any other offence arising out of this complaint, and no court has held that the plaint in CS (OS) 815 of 2026 was forged. No court has convicted Ankiti Bose of any offence. The London proceedings against Rattan were discontinued by consent, without a finding of fraud. The Delhi High Court orders of 24 August and 14 September 2026 are interim restraints. They do not decide the truth of the publications, and they do not decide the truth of this complaint. He is entitled to the presumption of innocence. The documents are entitled to be examined.