Mr. Imtiyaz Pasha Vs State of Karnataka by

MR. SHANAWAZ PASHA @ SHANAWAZ @ SHANU S/O LATE ANSAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. NO.104, 1ST CROSS BESIDE KALIYAMMA TEMPLE NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE RAJENDRA NAGARA BANGALORE 560047.

¶12

MR. WASIM BAIG @ WASIM S/O ISTA BAIG AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT. NO.79, PEER BOUNDARY CHICKPET, BANGALORE 560053.

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9164 CRL.P No.2929/2025

¶14

MR. SHAH FAISAL @ FAISAL @ ATTU S/O MOHD. SHANAWAZ AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT. NO.44, 2ND CROSS BILLAL BAKERY, M R R LANE NEAR KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION KALASIPALYA, BANGALORE 560002.

¶15

MR. SYED IRFAN @ CHENNU S/O SYED SHAFI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT. NO.45, 2ND CROSS KHUBA MASIDI, M R R LANE NEAR KALASIPAYA POLICE STATION KALASIPALYA, BANGALORE 560002.

¶16

MR. SADDAM PASHA @ MUSHEER S/O MUKRTHIYAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT. NO.7, 1ST CROSS TIPPU NAGAR, MYSORE ROAD CHAMARAJPET, BANGALORE 560018.

¶17

MR. TABREZ KHAN @ TABREZ S/O AKRAM KHAN @ AKRAM PASHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT. NO.32, ANJINAPPA LANE NOOR UL HUDA MASIDI OLD PENSION MOHALLA CHAMARAJPET, MYSORE ROAD BANGALORE 560018.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. TEJAS N, ADV.,*)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR POLICE BENGALURU 560027

¶22

REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSEUTOR HCK, BANGLAORE 01.

¶23

Deleted vide chamber order dated 12.03.2025.

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:9164 CRL.P No.2929/2025

¶26

MR. SALMAN SHARIFF S/O SUBAN SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. NO .17, B STREET SLATER HOUSE ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE 560027.

¶27

MR. SUBHAN SHARIFF S/O ABDUL REHAMAN AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT. NO.17, B STREET SLATER HOUSE ROAD SHIVAJINAGAR BANGALORE 560027.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. MASTAKEEM ALAM, ADV., FOR R2 & R3)

¶30

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.62/2017 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE LX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BANGALORE (CCH-61) WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.1/2016 OF SAMPANGIRAMA NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(b), 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 504, 506(B) R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/S 2 OF PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT 1981, AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW & ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:9164 CRL.P No.2929/2025

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

¶37

Sri Mastakeem Alam, learned counsel, undertakes to file a power of attorney on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶38

The petitioners, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 504, 506B read with Section 149 of the IPC, and Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction & Loss of Property Act, 1981, have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶39

“Wherefore, the petitioners—accused Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6 to 10—most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the proceedings in S.C. No. 62/2017 on the file of the Hon’ble LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-61), arising out of Crime No. 1/2016 of Sampangirama Nagar Police Station, Bangalore, for offences under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 504, 506(B) read with Section 149 of the IPC, and under Section 2 of the Prevention of Destruction & Loss of Property Act, 1981, as an abuse of the process of law and to grant such other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:9164 CRL.P No.2929/2025

¶42

The prosecution alleges that on 31.12.2015, while the complainant’s father was traveling home in a car with his driver, the accused, forming an unlawful assembly, allegedly abused, assaulted, and attempted to take his life, further threatening him with dire consequences.

¶43

The parties are present before this Court and have filed an application for compounding of offences, stating that they have amicably resolved their dispute. As per the terms of the settlement, the de facto complainant has agreed to withdraw all allegations and has no objection to quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶44

The application is placed on record.

¶45

The learned HCGP for respondent No.1 (State) submits that Section 307 of the IPC prescribes punishment up to life imprisonment, and therefore, the said offence cannot be compounded.

¶46

The wound certificate produced along with the charge sheet indicates that the injuries sustained by the complainant’s father were simple in nature. He sustained a sutured wound measuring 4 cm over the center of the head, allegedly caused by an iron rod. However, the wound certificate does not specify the assailants’ names, marking them as unknown. Subsequently, in a further statement, the petitioners were named as accused, but no specific overt act has been attributed to any individual accused, apart from general and omnibus allegations.

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:9164 CRL.P No.2929/2025

¶49

The offence under Section 307 of the IPC is predominantly private in nature. Since the injured party has no objection to quashing the proceedings, it would be futile to subject the petitioners to trial, as the probability of conviction appears remote and the case has a weak evidentiary link due to the settlement. Under such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶50

Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings in S.C. No. 62/2017 on the file of the LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (CCH-61), are hereby quashed.

¶51

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶52

BSR

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 110

Mr. Imtiyaz Pasha v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Imtiyaz Pasha v. State of Karnataka by

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

Can Fin Homes Limited Vs Inspector of Police and Station Officer

Sri Manju Bhargav Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Nkhil P Vs State by North Women Police Station

D S Venkatesh Vs Bhanumathi D v

Mr Siddaramaiah Vs Smt Indiramma

Sri. Zabi Ulla Vs State by