Karnataka High Court

Mubarak Hussain vs State Of Karnataka on 6 November, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                           -1-
                                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:44941
                                                                  CRL.P No. 12921 of 2023


                             HC-KAR


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                                    DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
                                                      BEFORE
                                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                                      CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12921 OF 2023
                                             (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
                             BETWEEN:

                             1.    MUBARAK HUSSAIN @ TUBARAK HUSSAIN
                                   S/O. LATE MUSTHAN HUSSAIN,
                                   AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.

                             2.    MOULA S/O. SHEIK ANWAR PASHA,
                                   AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

                             3.    BABA JAN S/O. BUDEN SAB,
                                   AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

                             4.    AKRAM S/O. PYARU SAB,
                                   AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

                             5.    KHADAR ALI S/O. SAB JAN SAB,
                                   AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

VISHAL
NINGAPPA
                             6.    ASLAM PASHA S/O. LATE ABDUL WAHID,
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by VISHAL
                                   AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Location: High Court of
Karnataka Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.07 11:53:37
+0530

                             7.    NADEEM S/O. ISMAIL SAB,
                                   AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

                             8.    AJGAR S S/O/. SARDAR PASHA,
                                   AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

                             9.    I. M. FHAKRUDDIN S/O. ISMIAL SAB,
                                   AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

                             10. KHADAR S/O. NAZEER AHMED,
                                 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
                           -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:44941
                                 CRL.P No. 12921 of 2023


HC-KAR


11. PEER PASHA S/O. SHAIK IBRAHIM,
    AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.

12. BABA JAN S/O. LATE ABDUL REHAMAN,
    AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

13. FAKRUDDIN S/O. MOHAMMED,
    AGED 42 YEARS.

14. NAVAZ S/O. MOHAMMED RAFIQ,
    AGED 52 YEARS.

15. SYED SULTAN S/O. SYED REHAMAN,
    AGED 45 YEARS.

16. SHAIK ABBAS S/O. ANWAR PASHA,
    AGED 54 YEARS.

17. MEHABOOB S/O. SYED REHAMAN,
    AGED 44 YEARS.

18. MUNEER S/O. ABDUL NASEER,
    AGED 44 YEARS,

19. BABA JAN S/O. MUSA KHAN,
    AGED 49 YEARS.

20. YARAB S S/O. ABDUL ABI,
    AGED 35 YEARS.

21. ABUDL JABBAR S/O. WAHID SAB,
    AGED 54 YEARS.

22. KAHDIR S/O. AMEER KHAN,
    AGED 35 YEARS.

23. TABIS @ TABU S/O. ALHA BAKSH,
    AGED 42 YEARS.

24. SUHAIL AKRAM S/O. REHAMATHULLA,
    AGED 34 YEARS.
                             -3-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:44941
                                  CRL.P No. 12921 of 2023


HC-KAR


25. MANSOOR AHMED S/O. NAZEER AHMED,
    AGED 39 YEARS.

26. KUTUBDIN S/O. ABDUL TAWAZ,
    AGED 42 YEARS.

27. ANSAR S/O. AMEER JAN,
    AGED 39 YEARS.

28. MOHAMMED KHALID S/O. SAB JAN SAB,
    AGED 69 YEARS.

29. TIPPU SULTAN
    S/O. ASLAM PASHA,
    AGED 34 YEARS.

30. SAFIQ PASHA S/O. PYARU SAB,
    AGED 53 YEARS.

31. SHAFIULLA S/O. JALEEL SAB,
    AGED 47 YEARS.

32. CHAND PASHA
    S/O. SHAFIULLA,
    AGED 35 YEARS.

33. SADIQ S/O. ADBUL SALAM,
    AGED 33 YEARS.

34. BABA JAN S/O. BASHA SAB,
    AGED 59 YEARS.

35. AJAJ S/O. ABDUL SATHAR,
    AGED 42 YEARS.

    ALL ARE R/A RAZAKPALYA
    BAGALUR POST, JALA HOBLI,
    BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 562 149.
                                          ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SITARA FOR SRI. T.A.KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE)
                             -4-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:44941
                                  CRL.P No. 12921 of 2023


HC-KAR


AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     BY BAGALURU POLICE,
     BAGALURU,
     BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
     BANGALORE - 560 064,
     REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.   S. S. THAPA,
     AGED: MAJOR,
     WING COMMANDER
     SAS AND I O,
     AIR FORCE STATION,
     YELAHANKA,
     BANGALORE - 560 063.
                                         ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDNET/STATE)

       THIS CRL.P FILED IS U/S 482 CR.PC     PRAYING TO

QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN

C.C.NO.2082/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)

AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, REGISTERED BY BAGALUR POLICE

IN CR.NO.150/2011, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER

RULES 91 OF AIRCRAFT RULES 1937 IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE AND EQUIYT.


       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                  -5-
                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:44941
                                          CRL.P No. 12921 of 2023


HC-KAR


                           ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel Ms. Sitara for Sri. T.A. Karumbaiah

appearing for the petitioners submits that qua the other

accused in the same proceeding, the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court has quashed the proceedings and this Court following the

judgment of Co-ordinate Bench has also quashed the

proceedings. The same reads as follows:

"The petitioner in this petition calls in question the proceedings pending before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli in C.C.No.2082/2012 arising out of Crime No.150/2011.

2. Out of the very same crime number, Criminal Petition No.6982/2014 had been filed before this Court. This Court, by its order dated 21.03.2019, 3 has allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the charge sheet in Crime No.150/2011.

3. The petitioner is accused No.20 in the said proceedings and the proceedings are quashed insofar as accused Nos.8,11, 15, 17 and 19. Therefore, the proceedings insofar as it concerns the petitioner also would stand quashed by following the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6982/2014, wherein this Court has held as follows:

"7. Considered the submissions and perused the records.

8. Fish rearing by itself is not an offence under Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules. However, as there are specific allegations that, for the purpose of rearing fish, chicken and mutton waste are thrown in the open ponds and surroundings are littered with waste, attracting birds which create a threat or danger for the aircrafts, these allegations prima facie attract the ingredients of offence under Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules. However, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, there is 4 absolutely no material whatsoever

NC: 2025:KHC:44941

HC-KAR

to show that the petitioners herein are indulging either fish rearing or dumping chicken and mutton waste in open ponds so as to attract birds flying in the area or that they are involved in littering the surroundings. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for petitioners, except the further statement of the complainant, there is no other material to show that the petitioners herein are engaged in fish rearing activity either at Razakpalya or in Budansabpalya. On the other hand, the certified copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.33488/2011 and connected matters indicate that the petitioners themselves had submitted a representation to the Assistant Director of Fisheries to take action against illegal fish farming at various ponds in Bagalur Tank and surrounding areas. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Budansabpalya and Razakpalya fall within Bagalur Tank area. There seems to be some force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners themselves had complained against the illegal activities that were carried out in the surrounding area, in the absence of clinching evidence to show that the petitioners were indulging in the very same activities, in my view, 5 initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners cannot be sustained. As held in Bhajan Lal's case, where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused, the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court. As the prosecution has failed to produce any reliable material in proof of involvement of the petitioners in the alleged activities, the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences is wholly illegal, baseless and abuse of the process of Court and cannot be allowed to be continued. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

Petition is allowed. The charge sheet in Cr.No.150/2011 for the offences punishable under Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 is quashed only insofar as the petitioners herein namely accused Nos.8, 11, 15, 17 and 19 are concerned."

4. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

NC: 2025:KHC:44941

HC-KAR

i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii. The charge sheet in Crime No.150/2011 for offence punishable under Rule 91 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 is quashed only insofar as petitioner - accused No.20 is concerned."