- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8542 CRL.P No. 1136 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1136 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAMMED NAZEER AHMED S/O LATE MOHAMMED HAYATH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.36, 4TH MAIN 16TH CROSS, 4TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560034 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RAKSHA KEERTHANA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIVALA POLICE STATION REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU - 560 001 2. NISAR AHMED ABUBAKKAR S/O ABBUBAKKAR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, M/S NEW METRO HOME APPLIANCES, R/AT NO 1851, 12TH MAIN ROAD, II PHASE RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 040 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. S.S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN CR.NO.492/2013 C.C.NO.6888/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.448, Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8542 CRL.P No. 1136 of 2022 341, 420, 120-B, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.1 in CC.No.6888/2016 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru (in Crime No.492/2013 of Madiwala police Station), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 420, 120B and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Heard Smt.Raksha Keerthana K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8542 CRL.P No. 1136 of 2022 "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. Initially, respondent No.2 as complainant filed the private complaint in PCR No.13357/2013 before the Trial Court against accused Nos.2 and 3 being the Deputy Regional Manager and Branch Manager of Dena Bank, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 506, 420, 447, 448, 468, 471, 364, 368, 384 and 120 read with 34 of IPC. 5. It is alleged that the present accused Nos.2 and 3 who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the private complaint being the Bank officials insisted the complainant to sell his property, which was mortgaged in favour of the Bank, while respondent No.2 had taken the loan of Rs.75,00,000/-. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8542 CRL.P No. 1136 of 2022 under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.492/2013 was registered at Madiwala Police Station. 6. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3. The accused who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the private complaint are now arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 and the present petitioner who was not arrayed as accused in the said complaint is now arrayed as accused No.1. 7. Column No.7 of the charge sheet discloses that, respondent No.2 had mortgaged his property to Dena Bank where accused Nos.2 and 3 were working as the Deputy Regional Manager and the Branch Manager and had availed loan. In the meantime, respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement to sell the said property in favour of accused No.1 for a total consideration of Rs.1.66 Crores. Out of which, accused No.1 had paid Rs.86,00,000/- as advance. The parties have agreed to get the sale deed registered after accused No.1 paying balance consideration amount. This agreement for sale was entered into on 29.03.2012. It is alleged that accused No.1 had not paid the balance consideration amount, but he - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8542 CRL.P No. 1136 of 2022 instigated accused Nos.2 and 3. As a result, all the accused came near the site on 26.02.2013 at 6.00 p.m. and illegally trespassed into the site, picked up quarrel with respondent No.2 by holding his collar, and criminally intimidated him. Accused No.1 proclaimed that he will not pay any amount to respondent No.2, and insisted for registration of the sale deed in his favour. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have illegally restrained respondent No.2 from proceeding further and insisted to get the sale deed registered in favour of accused No.1 or else threatened to file a false complaint. They have also taken the signatures of respondent No.2 on blank papers and thereby they have committed the above mentioned offences. 8. On perusal of the averments made in the private complaint by respondent No.2 in the light of the allegations made in the final report, I am of the opinion that the offence alleged in the private complaint has no reference to the offence alleged against the petitioner in the report filed by the Investigating Officer. In other words, the offence alleged against the petitioner in the final report does not find a place in the private complaint filed by respondent No.2. Totally new allegations are made in the final report by arraigning the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8542 CRL.P No. 1136 of 2022 petitioner as accused No.1. If at all, such an incident had occurred as alleged in the final report, respondent No.2 as complainant would not have spared the petitioner. There is absolutely no reason as to why the petitioner was not named in the petition while filing the private complaint. 9. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 was already quashed by this Court as per the order dated 26.08.2016 passed in Crl.P.No.4591/2016. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has noticed that respondent No.2 had mortgaged his property in favour of Dena Bank for availing the loan. Since he had failed to repay the loan amount, the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'SARFAESI Act') was invoked for issuance of notice and after initiation of the proceedings under SARFAESI Act, respondent No.2 had entered into an agreement to sell with the present petitioner and had obtained the advance amount. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8542 CRL.P No. 1136 of 2022 10. The conduct of respondent No.2 in mortgaging the property in question in favour of Dena Bank for availing the loan, without repaying the same, entering into an agreement to sell with accused No.1 on 29.03.2012, accepting an advance amount of Rs.86,00,000/-, and thereafter filing the complaint initially against accused Nos.2 and 3 alone give raise to a serious doubt about the commission of the offence by the present petitioner. In the absence of any allegations against the petitioner while filing the complaint by the complainant / respondent No.2, I am of the opinion that, filing of the final report against the petitioner making specific allegations is an afterthought and it is in abuse of process of law. 11. In view of the above, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No.6888/2016 on the file of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8542 CRL.P No. 1136 of 2022 learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 420, 120B and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14