Dismissed

Sri. Naveed Pasha @ Pasha Aj Naveed Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jan 2026CRL.P/8353/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused No.1 sought quashing of an FIR for cheating and related offences arising from a private complaint alleging fraudulent sale of a residential site after paying Rs.3 crores to imposters. The High Court found prima facie materials constituting the offences, rejected the civil-dispute contention, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Naveed Pasha @ Pasha Aj Naveed Pasha Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1070 CRL.P No. 8353 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8353 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. NAVEED PASHA @ PASHA AJ NAVEED PASHA S/O EJAJ PASHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.34/A, 7^TH MAIN 2^ND CROSS, KENGIRI UPANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 060.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. OMRAN KHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASUR POLICE BANGALORE - 560 008 (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

¶14

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

MRS. UZMA IFRAN, W/O. ZAID SADIQ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT: NO.1/29, HANUMANTHAPPA LAYOUT ULSOOR, BANGALORE-560008.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1

¶18

SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.64/2022 OF HALASUR P.S., BANGALORE WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE X ACMM, MAYO HALL UNIT,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:1070 CRL.P No. 8353 of 2022

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427, 420, 468, 471, 415, 417, 120B OF IPC AND THE CONSEQUENT INVESTIGATION ASS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶24

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner being accused No.1 in Crime No.64/2022

¶28

of Halasuru Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 420, 468, 471, 415, 417 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶29

Heard Sri.Omran Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. S. Mahesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶30

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:1070 CRL.P No. 8353 of 2022

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

¶35

My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following:

¶36

REASONS

¶37

Respondent No.2 filed the private complaint in PCR.No.51826/2021 before the learned 10^th Additional Chief Metropolitan, Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), against the petitioner and 10 others, alleging that the petitioner projected himself as an Agreement Holder in respect of a residential site situated adjacent to the house of respondent No.2, projected 3 other persons as the owners of site. Believing the words of accused No.1 and others, respondent No.2 paid Rs.3 Crores and got registered the sale deed, for which, accused No.1 is the consenting witness. It is stated that accused No.1 received Rs.1.2 Crores. Later, the real owner of the residential site appeared and he filed a complaint against accused No.1 as well as against respondent No.2, for cheating him. According to respondent No.2, it is only thereafter he came to know that the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:1070 CRL.P No. 8353 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

persons who are projected as owners, are not the owners and they have committed the criminal offence by colluding with one another and thereby committed the offences as stated above.

¶42

Now it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the dispute is purely of civil nature as respondent No.2 has filed the Civil Suit, which is pending consideration. But according to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, he filed the suit for recovery of the amount that was paid while getting the sale deed executed. Under such circumstances, the allegations made in the private complaint cannot be termed as a civil dispute that can be decided by the Civil Court in the suit that is pending seeking recovery of the amount that was paid by respondent No.2.

¶43

In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioner that the criminal proceedings is to be quashed as the same is in abuse of process of law. When the serious allegations are made against the petitioner and when there are prima-facie materials to constitute the offences, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:1070 CRL.P No. 8353 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

for any relief. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶48

'negative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

The Criminal Petition is dismiss ed.

¶51

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶52

MKM CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19

Sri. Naveed Pasha @ Pasha Aj Naveed Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Naveed Pasha @ Pasha Aj Naveed Pasha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanna Reddy Prasad Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Francis Clavier Vs State of Karnataka

Narendra Babu K L Vs State by

Sri Sampath Raj Vs State of Karnataka

Bindamma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Chandrappa K Vs State of Karnataka