MRS. AIYISHA RAZEEK vs THE STATE BY

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56200
CRL.P No. 5613 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010331422024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5613 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. MRS. AIYISHA RAZEEK
WIFE OF MR. ABDUL RAZEEK
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT C1
CHARTERED ALCOVE APARTMENT
NO.8, ALBERT STREET,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 025.

2. MR. RAM REDDY
SON OF MR. SHIVA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
WORKING AT NO.C1 AND C4
CHARTERED ALCOVE,
NO.8, ALBERT STREET,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 025.

3.
MR. BIDHAN
SON OF MR.VIKASH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
WORKING AT NO.C1 AND C4
CHARTERED ALCOVE,
NO.8 ALBERT STREET,










Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56200
CRL.P No. 5613 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010331422024



RICHMOND TOWN
BENGALURU 560 025.

4. MR.AKHIRUL ISLAM
SON OF MR.AMEER HUSSEN
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
NO.13, GREAT EASTERN APARTMENT
ALBERT STREET, RICHMOND TOWN,
BENGALURU 560 025.

5. MR. MUTHU RAJA
SON OF LATE MR.RAJI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
WORKING AT NO.C1 AND C4
CHARTERED ALCOVE
NO.8, ALBERT STREET,
RICHMOND TOWN
BENGALURU 560 025.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. THE STATE BY
ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION,
MUSEUM ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2.
MRS. JASEELA
WIFE OF LATE MR.S.M.YUNUS SHEIK
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT A4 CHARTERED ALCOVE

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56200
CRL.P No. 5613 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010331422024



NO.8, ALBERT STREET,
RICHMOND TOWN
BENGALURU - 560 025.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAVEED S., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI.CHANDPASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE ASHOKNAGARA POLICE AGAINST
THESE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.34/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 447, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-C), ON
THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDL. CMM, MAYOHALL UNIT, AT
BENGALURU.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking
to quash proceedings against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to
5 in C.C.No.54493/2024 (arising out of Crime No.34/2024
registered by Ashoknagar Police Station), for the offences
punishable under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34
of IPC, presently pending on the file of XXIX ACMM, Mayo Hall
Unit, Bengaluru (for short, 'the learned Magistrate').

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56200
CRL.P No. 5613 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010331422024



2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
05.02.2024, alleging that, on the same day at about 11:00
a.m., petitioner No.1, along with her four agents, forcibly
entered the parking space belonging to respondent No.2,
despite a court order restraining petitioner No.1 and her agents
from interfering with her possession and use of the said space.
When respondent No.2 questioned petitioner No.1 about her
entry, petitioner No.1, along with petitioner Nos.2 to 5,
allegedly assaulted respondent No.2, abused her in foul
language and threatened her with dire consequences. It is
further alleged that the agents of petitioner No.1 threatened
respondent No.2 in the presence of the Treasurer of the
Owners’ Association and thereafter illegally entered the parking
space belonging to her. Following the incident, respondent No.2
took outpatient treatment at St. Philomena’s Hospital and
subsequently lodged the complaint against the petitioners
before the respondent No.1-police.
3. On the strength of the said complaint, respondent
No.1-Police registered the FIR in Crime No.34/2024 for the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56200
CRL.P No. 5613 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010331422024



aforementioned offences. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police
investigated the case and laid charge sheet against all the
petitioners for the aforementioned offences by arraying them as
accused Nos.1 to 5. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners preferred this petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
5. Apart from raising several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners primarily contended that respondent
No.2 is the sister-in-law of petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.2
to 5 are the security guards of the apartment where petitioner
No.1 and respondent No.2 reside. She submitted that the
father of petitioner No.1 had executed a Will in respect of the
flat and other properties in favour of petitioner No.1 and her
brother, who is the husband of respondent No.2. The said Will
was objected by the husband of respondent No.2.
Subsequently, a partition deed was also executed between
petitioner No.1 and her brother in respect of the said
properties.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56200
CRL.P No. 5613 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010331422024



6. Learned counsel further submitted that, owing to
the dispute concerning the allotment of car parking space, the
husband of respondent No.2 instituted O.S.No.2017/2023
against petitioner No.1 and her family members, wherein the
Civil Court granted an interim order of injunction in his favour.
The said suit is pending adjudication. In such circumstances,
she contended that respondent No.2 had lodged a false
complaint to give a criminal colour to the civil dispute.
7. She further contended that the CCTV footage
discloses a scuffle between the parties in connection with the
parking dispute, which is already pending consideration before
the Civil Court. As regards petitioner Nos.2 to 5, learned
counsel submitted that they were merely security guards of the
apartment and had no role in the alleged incident. She
contended that the CCTV footage does not disclose their
participation in the incident. Accordingly, she submits that the
complaint had been lodged against the petitioners out of
vengeance and sought to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent
No.2 opposed the petition contending that the police, after

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56200
CRL.P No. 5613 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010331422024



investigation, had filed the charge sheet against the petitioners
and that the statements of the eyewitnesses clearly disclose
their alleged participation in the crime. He submitted that,
despite the order of injunction passed by the Civil Court against
petitioner No.1 in O.S.No.2017/2023, petitioner No.1, along
with the other petitioners, allegedly trespassed into the parking
space belonging to respondent No.2. When respondent No.2
questioned the same, petitioner No.1 allegedly manhandled
her. He further submitted that the allegations in the complaint
are supported by the wound certificate and CCTV footage
forming part of the charge sheet. The mere pendency of a civil
suit, according to the learned Senior Counsel, would not entitle
the petitioners to trespass into the disputed property and
assault respondent No.2. In view of the prima facie material
available against the petitioners, he contended that the
proceedings could not be quashed at this stage and accordingly
prays for dismissal of the petition.
9. Learned HCGP also opposed the prayer of the
petitioners and prays to dismiss the petition.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56200
CRL.P No. 5613 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010331422024



10. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the entire charge sheet materials.
11. As could be gathered from records, the relationship
between the parties, namely, petitioner No.1 and respondent
No.2, is not in dispute, and respondent No.2 is the sister-in-law
of petitioner No.1. It is also not in dispute that the husband of
respondent No.2 instituted O.S.No.2017/2023 against
petitioner No.1 and her family members, seeking a decree of
permanent injunction in respect of the dispute concerning the
parking space in the apartment, and that the Civil Court
granted an order of injunction in his favour.
12. On perusal of the complaint averments, it is alleged
that, on the date of the incident, petitioner No.1, along with
petitioner Nos.2 to 5, trespassed into the parking space
belonging to respondent No.2. When respondent No.2
questioned the same, petitioner No.1 allegedly picked up a
quarrel with her and assaulted her. The charge sheet materials
disclose that the incident occurred on 05.02.2024. The CCTV
footage produced along with the charge sheet also depicts an

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56200
CRL.P No. 5613 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010331422024



incident between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. Further,
the statements of the eyewitnesses disclose that they
witnessed the quarrel between them.
13. No doubt, a civil dispute is pending between
petitioner No.1 and the husband of respondent No.2. However,
in view of the CCTV footage and other materials forming part of
the charge sheet, the occurrence of the incident cannot be
disputed at this stage, and the alleged participation of
petitioner No.1 is prima facie borne out by the materials on
record.
14. However, insofar as accused Nos.2 to 5, namely,
petitioner Nos.2 to 5, are concerned, the CCTV footage does
not disclose their participation in the incident or establish their
presence at the spot. Admittedly, they are the security guards
of the apartment and have no direct connection with the
dispute concerning the parking space between petitioner No.1
and respondent No.2. In the ordinary course, it would be their
duty to intervene and pacify any quarrel between the residents
of the apartment. In such circumstances, in the absence of any
material indicating their participation in the alleged incident, it

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56200
CRL.P No. 5613 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010331422024



cannot be concluded that they were involved in the commission
of the alleged offences. Therefore, the complaint and charge
sheet materials, prima facie, do not disclose the commission of
the alleged offences by petitioner Nos.2 to 5. The continuation
of the proceedings against them, in the absence of specific
material indicating their involvement, would amount to an
abuse of the process of the Court.

15. In the aforesaid circumstance, I am of the

considered view that though there is an prima facie case is
made out against petitioner No.1-accused No.1, however, no
prima facie case is made out against the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 -
accused Nos.2 to 5, as such, the continuation of the
proceedings against them are nothing but abuse of process of
Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R

i. The petition is allowed in part .

ii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.2 to
5/accused Nos.2 to 5 is allowed .

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56200
CRL.P No. 5613 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010331422024




iii. The petition in respect of petitioner No.1
/accused No.1 is dismissed and the
proceedings against him shall continue.

iv. The proceedings against the petitioner Nos.2
to 5/accused Nos.2 to 5 in
C.C.No.54493/2024 (arising out of Crime
No.34/2024 registered by Ashoknagar Police
Station), for the offences punishable under
Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34
of IPC, presently pending on the file of XXIX
ACMM, Mayohall Bengaluru, is hereby
quashed.

v. It is made clear that the observations made
in this petition shall not come in the way
while disposing the case before the Trial
Court.

SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE



CR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10