Disposed¶42

Nizamuddin @ Nizam v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2025CRL.P/13969/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashing; NDPS Act S.20(B)(ii)C; ganja transportation 20-25 kgs; Crime No.116/2025 Gulpete PS Kolar; suo motu police complaint; S.482 CrPC / S.528 BNSS criminal petition; Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401; quashing power to be exercised sparingly; investigation cannot be stifled at FIR stage; liberty to challenge adverse final report; petition disposed by Justice Mohammad Nawaz, High Court of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

The investigation in the case is in progress and the statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation into the allegations cannot be stifled at this stage. ¶41

Nizamuddin @ Nizam Vs State of Karnataka — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:52555 CRL.P No. 13969 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13969 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

NIZAMUDDIN @ NIZAM BIN MOHAMMAD HANEEP AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT 1221 NAYAMATH BI NAGAR KOLAR- 563101.

¶11

MUBARAK PASHA QURESHI S/O ASLAM PASHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS NO.130, 1^st CROSS, NEAR MADINA MASJID, KHUTUBSHAHINSHA NAGAR, KOLAR - 563101

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. SURESH M CHARAMAGOL, ADV.)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GULPET PS REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING

¶17

BENGLAURU -560 001.

¶18

LOKESH M J AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:52555 CRL.P No. 13969 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CPI, GULPET PS KOLAR -563101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL.SPP)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.116/2025 OF GULPETE PS FOR O/P/U/S 20(B)(ii)C OF NDPS ACT, 1985 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRL.DIST.AND SESSIONS COURT, KOLAR.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Registration of FIR in Crime No. 116/2025 of Gulpete

¶30

Police Station for the offense punishable under Section 20(B)(ii)C of NDPS Act, 1985, pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kolar is under challenge in this petition.

¶31

The FIR is registered on a suo-motu complaint lodged by the Police against 8 to 10 unknown persons, alleging that on 18.09.2025 at about 12.30 p.m., while on patrolling, the complainant received a credible information

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52555 CRL.P No. 13969 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

about transportation of about 20 to 25 Kgs. of Ganja in a car, in order to sell the same to the workers in Tamaka Industrial Area.

¶35

It is the contention of the petitioners that they are innocent and they are being unnecessarily and falsely implicated in the case. It is also contended that the mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act are not followed and involvement of the petitioners is not made out.

¶36

In M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, though the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:52555 CRL.P No. 13969 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The investigation in the case is in progress. The

¶41

statutory duty of the police to conduct investigation into the allegations cannot be stifled at this stage. Since FIR is registered on the basis of credible information regarding transportation of Ganja, the Police are required to conduct investigation and file appropriate report. If any adverse report is filed against the petitioners, it is open for them to challenge the same.

¶42

With the above observations, the petition is disposed

¶43

of.

¶44

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶45

MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Nizamuddin @ Nizam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nizamuddin @ Nizam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Suraj Singh Vs State of Karnataka

Dilip @ Dilip Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Vasvi K K Vs State by Panchanahalli P S

Sri Raghavendra K M @ Raghu Vs the State of Karnataka

Swappan Barman Vs State of Karnataka

Satish M Vs State of Karnataka