[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Abdul Azeem Sayed vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1941
CRL.P No. 200127 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200127 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. ABDUL AZEEM SAYED
S/O SYED MOHAMMED HAKEEM
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O. H NO. 12-6-541, LBS NAGAR
MUKRAM GUNJ, RAICHUR
NOW RESIDING AT ASMA MANZIL
NEAR AKKI HOSPITAL, BUTHRA COLONY
ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101
2. SMT. SYEDA FARIDA BEGUM
Digitally signed by W/O. SRI. ABDUL AZEEM SAYED
SHIVALEELA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH
R/O. H NO. 12-6-541, LBS NAGAR
COURT OF MUKRAM GUNJ, RAICHUR
KARNATAKA NOW RESIDING AT ASMA MANZIL
NEAR AKKI HOSPITAL, BUTHRA COLONY
ATHANI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586101
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAVESHWAR MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI
JALA NAGAR POLICE STATION
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1941
CRL.P No. 200127 of 2026
HC-KAR
DIST: VIJAYAPUR
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE
HIGH COURT BUILDING
KALABURGI-585103
2. SMT. MEHAJABIN KHAZI
W/O. DR. AMEER KHUSHRU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: HH WORK
R/O. MEHBOOBI MANZIL
JALA NAGAR, HUDCO
VIJAYAPUR-586101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS
(NEW), U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR IN CRIME NO. 151/2025 FOR JALANAHGAR P.S, VIJAYAPUR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 316(2), 318(4),
351(2) R/W SEC. 3(5) OF BNS ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (SD) AND JMFC, VIJAYAPURA.
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 Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the
FIR against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1941
HC-KAR
No.151/2025 registered by Jalanagar Police Station,
Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections
316(2), 318(4) and 351(2) r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [for short, 'the BNS, 2023'],
presently pending on the file of III Additional Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Vijayapura.
2. The factual matrix of the case is, respondent
No.2 lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police
alleging that she and petitioner No.1 were well acquainted
with each other and petitioner No.1 was working as a Civil
Engineer at Saudi Arabia and he used to visit India
frequently. The husband of respondent No.2 made the
petitioners to believe that if they invest in land at
Vijayapura, they would get high returns and the prices of
the property are rising in a high speed and assured the
petitioners that he would assist them in buying the
property at Vijayapura. Thereafter, husband of respondent
No.2 informed the petitioners that there is a land for sale
and if he purchase that land, he would get good returns on
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1941
HC-KAR
such investment. Accordingly, when petitioner No.1
expressed his difficulty to travel to Vijayapura, husband of
respondent No.2 informed him to transfer Rs.46,00,000/-
and assured that documentation can be done after his
travel. Believing on his words, petitioner No.1 transferred
a sum of Rs.46,00,000/- in the name of respondent No.2
and her children. After receiving the said amount, the
husband of respondent No.2 postponed the sale
transaction. Though the petitioners have requested him to
refund the amount or to complete the sale transaction, the
husband of respondent No.2 informed that his wife has
entered into an agreement of sale in respect of land
bearing R.S.No.787/*/2A measuring 10 guntas out of 2
acres 12 guntas of Mahalbagayat, Vijayapura and informed
that he would execute agreement of sale in favour of the
petitioners for a sale consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-.
Accordingly, respondent No.2 executed the agreement of
sale in favour of the petitioners in respect of the above
land on 12.08.2024. Thereafter, respondent No.2 and her
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1941
HC-KAR
husband neither executed the Sale Deed nor refunded the
money of the petitioners. As such, the petitioners lodged
the FIR, which was registered in Crime No.149/2025
against respondent No.2, her husband and her family
members. Subsequently, respondent No.2 lodged a
complaint against the petitioners alleging that on
12.08.2024, the petitioners took her to the Court and got
executed the agreement of sale without payment of any
sale consideration and also alleged that on 24.09.2024
petitioner No.1 went to her house and intimidated her. As
such, respondent No.1-Police registered the case against
the petitioners in Crime No.151/2025 for the offences
states supra. Aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred
this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.
4. The primary contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is, this complaint is nothing but a
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1941
HC-KAR
counter blast for the complaint lodged by the petitioners
against respondent No.2 and his family members, which
was registered in Crime No.149/2025, after lapse of two
days, this case has been registered. He also contended
that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in
nature and instead of availing their remedy for
enforcement of contract, in order to give criminal colour to
the civil dispute, this complaint has been lodged.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader opposed the prayer and prays to dismiss the
petition.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not
dispute the fact that the dispute pertaining to the parties
is civil in nature. As such, case and counter cases are filed.
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and the documents available on record.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1941
HC-KAR
8. As could be gathered from the complaint
averments, the dispute is purely civil in nature in
connection with enforcement of the agreement entered
into between the parties in respect of the landed property
and payment of advance sale consideration. In such
circumstance, offences under the provisions stated supra
do not attract against the petitioners. Further, by
considering the submission of learned counsel for
respondent No.2, I am of the considered view that the
continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is
nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in
Crime No.151/2025 registered by
Jalanagar Police Station, Vijayapura,
for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 351(2)
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1941
HC-KAR
r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, presently pending on
the file of III Additional Civil Judge
(Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Vijayapura, is
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
CT-BH
