Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/9664/2026 of MR. MOHAMMED AHAMMED Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 24 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010451832026 NC: 2026:KHC:52843 CRL.P No. 9664 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9664 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MR. MOHAMMED AHAMMED S/O LATE AMEER AHAMED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9664 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
MR. MOHAMMED AHAMMED
S/O LATE AMEER AHAMED
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT NO.94, 2ND CROSS, S.B.M. COLONY,
UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU CITY-570 019.
2.
MR. SUHEB AHAMMED ALIAS SHOAIB AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED AHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.94, 2ND CROSS, S.B.M. COLONY,
UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU CITY - 570 019.
3.
SMT. AFSHA ANJUM ALIAS AFSHAN ANJUM
D/O MOHAMMED AHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.94, 2ND CROSS, S.B.M. COLONY,
UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU CITY - 570 019.
4.
SMT. MISBA ANJUM
W/O SYED MATHEEN
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.130, 4TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE,
NEAR TIPPU PARK, UDAYAGIRI, MYSURU CITY.
5.
SMT. AYESHA SIDDIQA
W/O JAMEEL UR RAHMAN
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NO.2355/1, SAILDUM PARK ROAD,
MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY - 570021.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PAVAN SAGAR.,ADVOCATE)
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION,
MYSURU CITY REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001.
2.
SMT. UMME HANI
W/O SRI. SHABAZ KHAN
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/AT NO.58, LIG, P.H. COLONY,
N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY - 570 007.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NAGHARISH G S, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH
THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO. 8758/2025 (ANNEXURE-B)
REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT (NARASIMHARAJA
POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 126(2), 329(4), 352, 351(2) R/W 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA
NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, MYSURU CITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1-State.
3. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.8758/2025 for the alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 329(4), 352, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS'), pending before the JMFC, Mysuru City.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complainant is the foster daughter of the first petitioner's brother and the first petitioner's brother died on 24.07.2025. It is alleged that on that day and the next day, a scuffle took place and the complainant was assaulted and some of the mobile phones were forcibly taken away from the complainant's possession.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there is a delay of 27 days in lodging the complaint and
HC-KAR
the complaint was lodged after the complainant's unsuccessful attempt to secure an order of injunction in the suit which has been filed in respect of the property held by the foster father.
6. It is the further submission that the complainant does not have any right over the property of the foster father who is the brother of the first petitioner and in order to grab the property, the present complaint has been filed.
7. The police could not have filed the charge sheet.
8. Learned HCGP would submit that there is an allegation of assault and three eye witnesses have been cited and assuming that the complainant does not have any right over the property, it cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings where there is an allegation of assault.
9. The court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there are a few discrepancies in the statement made in the complaint and the statement made in
HC-KAR
the petition, and though there is a delay of 27 days in filing the complaint, those factors by themselves cannot be the grounds to quash the charge sheet. If at all any of the minor discrepancies, the complainant under law is entitled to offer a valid explanation. Whether the explanation is valid or not and whether the valid reasons are assigned or not can be considered at the time of final disposal after the trial.
11. Under the se circumstances, keeping all the contentions open, the petition is dismissed.
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13