Bava Ameer Bantwal Vs Maseeha Peerzade

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1307 CRL.P No. 100294 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100293 of 2022

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100294 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100293 OF 2022

¶5

IN CRL.P. NO.100294 OF 2022:

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BAVA AMEER BANTWAL S/O. IMAM BANTWAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NASIMAN STEER MAGDOOM COLONY BHATKAL, TQ. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581 320.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MASEEHA PEERZADE S/O. MIRAN PEERZADE AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 150, RAGINA HOUSE, 2^ND FLOOR, ROOM NO-23, MATAR PAKADY ROAD, MAZGAON MUMBAI, STATE MAHARASTRA-400010.

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.28 15:15:51 +0530

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BHATKAL TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R2)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF CC NO.1059/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKAL AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 MADE IN CC NO.1059/2019 AND ALSO THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF CC NO.1059/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER 417, 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 R/W

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1307 CRL.P No. 100294 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100293 of 2022

¶19

SECTION 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKAL, IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED NO.11.

¶20

CRL.P. NO.100293 OF 2022:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

BAVA AMEER BANTWAL S/O. IMAM BANTWAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NASIMAN STEER MAGDOOM COLONY, BHATKAL, TQ. BHATKAL, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581 320.

¶23

…PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

MERAJ PEERZADE S/O. MIRAN PEERZADE AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 150, RAGINA HOUSE, 2^ND FLOOR, ROOM NO-23, MATAR PAKADY ROAD, MAZGAON MUMBAI, STATE MAHARASTRA-400010.

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BHATKAL TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PULBIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD-580011.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R2)

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF CC NO.1060/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKAL AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 MADE IN CC NO.1060/2019 AND ALSO THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF CC NO.1060/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 417, 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BHATKAL, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.11 IS CONCERNED.

¶31

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1307 CRL.P No. 100294 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100293 of 2022

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Since the petitioner is common and the allegations in the complaint arise out of the same transaction, the matters are taken up together, heard, and disposed of by this common order.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent–State.

¶37

The petitioner, who is sought to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 423, 465, 467, 468, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, is before this Court.

¶38

Respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that accused Nos. 1 to 10 fraudulently forged a signature, created a document in their favor, and thereafter sold the property to accused No.11 (the petitioner herein).

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner–accused No.11 submits that, even if the entire allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, they do not constitute the offences alleged insofar as they pertain to the petitioner. The allegations of fabricating the documents are entirely against accused Nos. 1 to 10. Merely because the petitioner is the purchaser of the property from accused Nos. 1 to 10, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶40

The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent–State argues that the allegations in the complaint

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1307 CRL.P No. 100294 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100293 of 2022

¶42

disclose the commission of cognizable offences, which can be examined during the trial and not at this stage. He further submits that accused No.11 was part of the conspiracy along with accused Nos. 1 to 10 in creating the documents and, therefore, the filing of the charge sheet does not warrant interference. He sought the dismissal of the petition.

¶43

Upon considering the arguments advanced by both parties, the following observations are made:

¶44

The allegations of fabricating documents are specifically directed against accused Nos. 1 and 2. Except for the allegation that accused Nos. 1 and 2 fraudulently sold the property to accused No.11 after creating the documents, there is no specific allegation regarding the involvement of the petitioner–accused No.11 in the alleged offences.

¶45

Respondent No.2 has already filed a suit in O.S. No.22/2014 seeking a declaration that the gift deed executed between accused Nos. 1 to 10 and the subsequent sale deed executed in favor of accused No.11 is null and void and not binding.

¶46

In the absence of specific allegations or overt acts connecting the petitioner–accused No.11 to the alleged fraudulent creation of documents or conspiracy, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶47

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed.

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1307 CRL.P No. 100294 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100293 of 2022

¶49

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1060/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhatkal, in Crl.P.No.100294/2022 and in Crl.P.No.100293/2022 insofar it relates to the petitioner herein is hereby quashed.

¶50

Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶51

HR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

Bava Ameer Bantwal v. Maseeha Peerzade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bava Ameer Bantwal v. Maseeha Peerzade

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

Shri. Ravindra S/O Sadashiv Magadum Vs the State of Karnataka

Manohar S/O. K. Kullayappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravichandra S. Alias Ravi S/O. Basavarajayya S. Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivanand S/O Babu Kanabur Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Girija W/O Veerappa Savadatti Vs Manjunath S/O Shivanand Andani Swami Math

Shri Nitin S/O Ashirlal Shah Vs the Assessment Unit