SHAMEEM TAJ vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58378
CRL.P No. 7178 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010102562020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7178 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SHAMEEM TAJ
D/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ KHAN
W/O MUJAHIDKHAN
AGE OF 31 YEARS
R/A AT NO.39
HYDER ALI MOHALLA
SRINIVASPUR TOWN-563 135
KOLAR DIST AND ALSO
R/O DOOR NO.2804
AMBEDKAR ROAD
BANGARPET
2. IMRAN
S/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ KHAN
AGE 39 YEARS
HYDER ALIMOHALLA
SRINIVASPURA TOWN-563135
3. PUR KHAN
S/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ KHAN
AGE 29 YEARS
HYDER ALI MOHALLA
SRINIVASPURA TOWN – 563135
4. NAWAZ KHAN
S/O ABDUL RAHIM KHAN
AGE 69 YEARS
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58378
CRL.P No. 7178 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010102562020
ADVOCATE
RD
3 CROSS, HYDER ALI MOHLLA
SRINIVASPURA TOWN-563135
5. IRFAN KHAN
S/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ KHAN
AGE 29 YEARS
HYDER ALI MOHALLA
SRINIVASPURA TOWN-563135
6. NIZAM
S/O GOUSE PEER KHAN
AGE 31 YEARS
BUSINESS
TH
DOOR NO.21, 4 CROSS
CHAMRAJPET
BANGALORE TOWN-560018
7.
MUMTAZ
W/O MOHAMMED NAWAZ KHAN
AGE 60 YEARS
HOUSE WIFE
RD
3 CROSS, HYDER ALI MOHALLA
SRINIVASPURA TOWN-563135
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SRINIVASPUR POLICE
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
2. SHAIK ESMAIL
S/O LATE ABDUL SUBHAN
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58378
CRL.P No. 7178 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010102562020
AGE 60 YEARS
R/AT HYDARALI MOHALLA
SRINIVASPURA TOWN
KOLAR-563135
3. FAIROZ PASHA
S/O SHAKE ISMAIL
AGE 28 YEARS
R/AT HYDARALI MOHALLA
SRINIVASPURA TOWN
KOLAR-563135
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUHAS GOWDA M, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 AND R3 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.294/2019,
CR.NO.49/2019 U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W
149 OF IPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed praying this Court to quash all further
proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein in
C.C.No.294/2019 arising out of Cr.No.49/2019 for the offences
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58378
CRL.P No. 7178 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010102562020
punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506
read with Section 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the State.
3. The specific accusation is made in the complaint as
well as in the charge sheet that on 09.03.2019 at 04:00 p.m. in
connection with the dispute in respect of Sy.No.163/P4 to the
extent of 6 acres of land, when accused Nos.1 to 7 went to
install the borewell in the said land, CW1 and 2 brought to their
notice that the case is pending before the District Deputy
Commissioner of Kolar and resisted to do the same, at that
time, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up a quarrel and abused in a
fifth language and accused No.1 assaulted CW1 with the stick
on his waist; accused No.2 holding the collar of CW2 assaulted
on his cheek with hands; accused No.3 kicked CW2 with his
legs; accused No.4 inflicted injury on CW1 with the stick on his
back as a result, he has also sustained the injuries and accused
Nos.5 and 6 abused in filthy language, assaulted with their
hands and gave threat to their life. This incident was witnessed
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58378
CRL.P No. 7178 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010102562020
by the witnesses who have been cited as CW4 and CW5 and
injured went and took the treatment with CW7-doctor and
doctor has issued the wound certificate and police have
investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
4. The counsel appearing for the petitioners would
vehemently contend that there was a civil dispute between the
parties and also produced the documents before the Court to
show that alleged incident took place at Kolluru village,
Srinivasapura Taluk in respect of land bearing Sy.No.212
measuring 2 acres and Sy.No.163/P4 measuring 2 acres 18
guntas that too in 2018. When petitioner No.2 had lodged a
non-cognizable report with the respondent police against
respondent No.2 and others alleging illegal trespass on
03.01.2019, an NCR was issued and petitioner No.2 also lodged
the FIR against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 506, 504, 149, 447 and 448 of IPC.
The counsel in support of his arguments, relies upon the
photographs. The counsel would contend that petitioner No.2
instituted a suit before the jurisdictional court seeking a decree
of permanent injunction in O.S.No.66/2019 and Trial Court
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58378
CRL.P No. 7178 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010102562020
granted an accused-interim injunction in favour of petitioner
No.2 and as against the said order, MA was filed in
M.A.No.13/2021 and the said MA was also dismissed. The
counsel would contend that petitioner No.2 also lodged another
FIR registered in Crime No.48/2019 alleging illegal trespass and
assault invoking the offences under Sections 427, 506, 504,
143, 149, 448 and 323 of IPC. So also, respondent No.3 had
lodged the FIR against the petitioners, wherein offences are
invoked under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 504, 506 and also
Section 324 of IPC. The present complaint is dated 03.01.2019.
5. The counsel also vehemently contend that when the
respondents/complainants were unsuccessful in this
O.S.No.66/2019 and M.A.No.13/2021, a false case is made
against the petitioners. The counsel also brought to notice of
this court the wound certificates which have been produced
wherein in the first wound certificate in respect of Shaik Esmile,
it is only stated that no external injuries only he has got body
ache. But in respect of Fairoz Pasha is concerned, the wound
certificate discloses the injuries are abrasion 2x2cm and those
injuries on the right arm (medial aspect) and said injuries are
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58378
CRL.P No. 7178 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010102562020
simple in nature. When such being the case, it is very clear that
only with an intention to harass the petitioners, a false
complaint is filed.
6. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent
No.1/State would submit that with regard to the incident is
concerned, the injured persons have taken the treatment and
there are eyewitnesses to the said incident. When the
document of wound certificates discloses that an incident was
taken place and injuries were sustained and injuries are also
simple in nature, whether it attract Section 323 or 324 of IPC
or not is a matter of trial. The counsel also would submit that in
view of civil dispute between the parties only this incident was
taken place. When witnesses were cited and during the course
of investigation, eyewitnesses and also the doctor who gave the
treatment also gave the statement and their statements are
also available before the court, this Court cannot appreciate the
same sitting under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
petitioners and also the counsel appearing for the State and on
perusal of the material also available before the court, it is very
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58378
CRL.P No. 7178 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010102562020
clear that there was a civil dispute between both the parties. So
also, the counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to notice
of this court that at the instance, petitioner No.2 also cases
were registered earlier and this incident was also taken place.
With regard to this incident is concerned, the injured also went
to the hospital and took the treatment. No doubt, the wound
certificates which have been relied upon by the counsel for the
petitioners only discloses a body ache and no external injuries
in respect of Shaik Ismail. But other one has sustained the
injuries and the said injuries are simple in nature. But the
prima facie court has to take note of the fact that when the
incident was taken place and injured persons have sustained
the injuries and also doctor has treated the injured persons and
eyewitness statement was also recorded during the course of
investigation, as rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing
for the respondent/State that it is a matter of trial, the same
has to be considered while appreciating the evidence available
on record. The scope of Section 482 is very limited. This Court
cannot consider the defence as well as the evidence available
on record while considering the petition under Section 482 of
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58378
CRL.P No. 7178 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010102562020
Cr.P.C.. Hence I do not find any force in the contention of the
counsel appearing for the petitioners that in view of the civil
dispute only, this case has been falsely registered. When the
wound certificates are on record and also the statement of
witnesses are also on record and doctor who treated the injured
persons were also cited as witness, all these material has to be
considered by the trial court. Hence, I do not find any grounds
to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
the proceedings as sought by the counsel for the petitioners.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN