[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Dr Ameer Khusro vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1942
CRL.P No. 200297 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. 200297 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. DR. AMEER KHUSRO
S/O MD. IBRAHIM KHAZI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. NEAR BUDDA VIHAR
S.R.COLONY, JALNAGAR
VIJAYAPURA
2. MAHEJABEEN KHAZI
W/O. DR. AMEER KHUSRO
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA R/O. NEAR BUDDA VIHAR
DATTATRAYA UDAGI S.R.COLONY, JALNAGAR
Location: HIGH VIJAYAPURA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. MD. UZAIR
S/O. AMEER KHUSRO
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O. NEAR BUDDA VIHAR
S.R.COLONY, JALNAGAR
VIJAYAPURA
4. MD. ZAID
S/O. AMEER KHUSRO
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE
R/O. NEAR BUDDA VIHAR,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1942
CRL.P No. 200297 of 2026
HC-KAR
S.R.COLONY, JALNAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA
5. MD. JUNAID
S/O. AMEER KHUSRO
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O. NEAR BUDDA VIHAR
S.R.COLONY, JALNAGAR
VIJAYAPURA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH JALA NAGAR PS
VIJAYAPURA, REP. BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE
HIGH COURT BUILDING
KALABURGI-585 103
2. SAYED ABDUL AZEEM
SYED MOHAMMAD HAKEEM
S/O SAYED MOHAMMED HAKEEM
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
OCC: ENGINEER,
R/O. H.NO.12/6/541,
LBS NAGAR, MUKRAM GANJ, RAICHUR
NOW RESIDING AT ASMA MANJIL
NEAR AKKI HOSPITAL,
BUTHRA COLONY, ATHANI ROAD
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI S. S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.
(OLD), U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1942
CRL.P No. 200297 of 2026
HC-KAR
PRESENT PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.0149/2025 DATED 18.12.2025 BEING REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 JURISDICTIONAL POLICE/JALANAGAR PS,
VIJAYAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 318(4), 322,
351(2), 190 OF BNS ACT, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
COURT OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND JMFC
COURT, VIJAYAPUR, AS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ANY
AUTHORITY.
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 to 5 in Crime
No.149/2025 registered by Jalanagar Police Station,
Vijayapura for the offences punishable under Sections
318(4), 322 and 351(2) r/w Section 190 of Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [for short, 'the BNS, 2023'],
presently pending on the file of the III Additional Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Vijayapura.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the
petitioners and respondent No.2 are known to each other.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1942
HC-KAR
It is contended by respondent No.2 that he is residing at
Saudi Arabia and working as Civil Engineer and he used to
visit India frequently. The petitioners made respondent
No.2 to believe that if he invests in land at Vijayapura, he
would get high returns and the prices of the property are
rising in a high speed and assured him that they would
assist him in buying the property at Vijayapura.
Thereafter, the petitioners informed respondent No.2 that
there is a land for sale and if he purchase that land, he
would get good returns on such investment. Respondent
No.2 expressed his difficulty to travel to Vijayapura. The
petitioner No.1 informed him to transfer Rs.46,00,000/-
and assured that documentation can be done after his
travel. Believing on his words, respondent No.2
transferred a sum of Rs.46,00,000/- in the name of
petitioners. After receiving the said amount, the
petitioners postponed the sale transaction. Though
respondent No.2 requested them to refund the amount or
to complete the sale transaction, the petitioners informed
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1942
HC-KAR
that petitioner No.2 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 they would execute
agreement of sale in favour of respondent No.2 for a sale
consideration of Rs.30,00,000/-. Accordingly, petitioners
executed the agreement of sale in favour of respondent
No.2 in respect of the above land on 12.08.2024.
Thereafter, the petitioners neither executed the registered
sale deed nor refunded the money of respondent No.2. As
such, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint, which was
registered in Crime No.149/2025 against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5. Aggrieved by the
registration of Crime No.149/2025, the 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.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1942
HC-KAR
4. The primary contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is 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. He also submits that a counter case has been
registered by petitioner No.2 against respondent No.2 and
his family members, which was registered in Crime
No.151/2025. 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:1942
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 to 5 in Crime
No.149/2025 registered by Jalanagar
Police Station, Vijayapura for the
offences punishable under Sections
318(4), 322, 351(2), 190 of Bharatiya
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1942
HC-KAR
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, presently pending
on the file of the III Additional Civil
Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Vijayapura is
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
CT-BH
