Sri. Nayeemullah @ Nayeem Vs Sri. Syed Waseem

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:12913 CRL.P No. 491 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 491 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NAYEEMULLAH @ NAYEEM S/O MOHAMMED ANWAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O OLD KURAB GIRI OPPOSITE TO BHARATH BIKE ZOOM, KOLLEGAL NOW R/AT: OPPOSITE JAMIYA MASJIDI HARADANAHALLI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGARA TALUK KARNATAKA-571 127

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. MOHAMMED RAFI S/O MOHAMMED ANWAR R/AT FIX PLUS C-8 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CAR GARAGE MADESHWARA COLLEGE ROAD NEAR NALANDA GAS AGENCY KOLLEGAL NOW R/AT: NO.108, BANGALORE ROAD KOLLEGALA TOWN, KOLLEGAL CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 440

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. PAWAN K, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. TEJAS N, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. SYED WASEEM S/O LATE SYED NOOR MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O NO.186, 4^TH MAIN

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:12913 CRL.P No. 491 of 2019

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

14^TH CROSS, 6^TH SECTOR H.S.R.LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 102

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SMT. GOWHAR UNNISA, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.2912/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF P.C.R.NO.23779/2011, AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in C.C.No.2912/2013 taking congnizance of offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC') and the order issuing process.

¶25

(i) The respondent filed P.C.R.No.23779/2011, alleging that on 17.10.2011, the petitioners threatened him

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:12913 CRL.P No. 491 of 2019

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

that he should pay them a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. He also alleged that the petitioners had forged and created some documents using concocted seals and letterheads of his company. In that regard, his brother lodged a complaint before the Kollegala Police Station. On the same day, the petitioner No.1 with his wife lodged a false complaint that the respondent had assaulted the wife of the petitioner No.1. However, the Kollegala Police Station issued a Non-Cognizable Report (for short 'NCR') and closed the case. He alleged that the petitioners were grinding vengeance against him.

¶29

(ii) He claimed that on 27.10.2011 at 11.00 p.m., the petitioners went to his house and started abusing him. He was thereafter manhandled by the petitioner No.1 and punched on his chest and mouth, causing bleeding injuries. He also threatened the respondent of his life and manhandled him. The respondent was shocked and due to the injuries, was hospitalised. He thereafter filed a private complaint on 29.10.2011. The trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the respondent on 11.01.2012 and took cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the IPC and

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:12913 CRL.P No. 491 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

issued process to the petitioners. The petitioners are therefore before this Court.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that except giving his sworn statement, the respondent did not produce any material to show that an offence under Section 323 of the IPC was committed. He also submitted that the respondent did not attribute anything to the petitioner, which amounted to an offence under Section 506 of IPC. He therefore submits that the trial Court blindly took cognizance of the offence and issued process.

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondent is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of her submissions.

¶36

A perusal of the private complaint shows that the respondent though mentioned in the private complaint that he had suffered injuries and was hospitalized, did not produce any material before the Court while recording his sworn statement. He also did not adduce the evidence of his wife or any person who was present along with him as mentioned in the private complaint. The trial Court without considering these facts, has

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:12913 CRL.P No. 491 of 2019

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

blindly taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶40

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned prosecution of the petitioners was wholly unwarranted and the order taking cognizance was without due application of mind.

¶41

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The criminal petition is allowed;

¶44

ii. The impugned prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.2912/2013, on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed.

¶45

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶46

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Sri. Nayeemullah @ Nayeem v. Sri. Syed Waseem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Nayeemullah @ Nayeem v. Sri. Syed Waseem

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

Mr Sijin Joseph Vs M/S Raitha Seva Gramodyoga

Srinivas Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Zoom Car India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Sridhara Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Balaji Bhat Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri Nasir Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka