Karnataka High Court
CCC/1573/2025 of MR MOHAMMED JAVEED AGHA Vs SYED MAZAHAR AHMED on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010797942025 NC: 2026:KHC:52229-DB CCC No. 1573 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1573 OF 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1573 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED JAVEED AGHA
S/O LATE ABDUL SYED AGHA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.6 AND 7, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
AROGYAMA LAYOUT, A. C. POST,
BANGALORE – 560 045
…COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. ZAMEER PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SYED MAZAHAR AHMED
S/O LATE SYED ANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO.67/1, (CORRECT NO.27/1)
20TH CROSS, LALJINAGAR,
LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE – 560 030
ALSO AT: #16, NK FUNCTION HALL,
BHEL LAYOUT, SR KRISHNAPPA GARDERN,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 029
2.
SUHAIL AHMED KHAN
S/O LATE SARDAR KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.73, M. R. R. LANE,
STORE STREET,
Digitally signed by
SUMATHY KANNAN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
NEAR TIP TOP FURNITURE,
KALASIPALYA,
BENGALURU – 560 002
3.
AYUB KHAN @ SADAR
S/O SATTAR KHAN
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT NO.8/2, M.M GARDEN,
3RD CROSS, 6TH STAGE, 80 FEET ROAD,
NEAR SAMSUNG SERVICE CENTRE,
KORMANGALA,
BENGALURU – 560 034
…ACCUSED
(BY SRI. RAMESH ADITHYA, ADVOCATE FOR A1 TO A3; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR G, ADVOCATE FOR A2)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT, PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR HAVING
WILLFULLY DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY DISOBEYED, DISRESPECTED AND FOR NOT HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE
UNDERTAKING
GIVEN
IN
JOINT
AFFIDAVIT
IN
CRL.P.NO.1683/2024 AND ORDER DATED 31.07.2025 IN CRL.
PET. NO.1683/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE- AND B AND PUNISH THE
ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
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
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
HC-KAR
2. The accused Nos.1 and 2 are present in Court. However, accused No.3 is not present. Therefore, we direct that the bail bond furnished by accused No.3 be forfeited and the amount of penalty be paid by him within a period of two months from today.
3. The petition is filed alleging willful disobedience of the undertaking given in joint affidavit in Criminal Petition No.1683/2024 and the order dated 31.07.2025 in Criminal Petition No.1683/2024. A perusal of the order, contempt of which is alleged, reflects that the operative part of the order reads as follows: “ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed;
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.5247/2020 pending on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 419, 420, 471, 418, 204, 109, 120(B), and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, insofar as they relate to accused Nos.3 to 5, are hereby quashed in view of the settlement;
(iii) The joint compromise petition shall form part of this order.”
HC-KAR
4. A perusal of the joint affidavit that is filed as Annexure-“A” with this contempt petition reflects that a sale deed was to be executed pursuant to an agreement to sell for a sale consideration of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees seventy-five lakhs only). The part payment of sale consideration was Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) which was the consideration of the agreement to sell executed between the parties. In paragraph 6 thereof, it was mentioned that the compromise petition is binding on both the parties till such time the registration of the property is completed in favour of Mohammed Javeed Aga.
5. The contempt petition has been perused by us. Nowhere therein has it been mentioned that the complainant has complied with his part of the contract of being ready and willing to pay the sale consideration of Rs.75,00,000/-. No document has been filed to evince the same. Under the circumstances, contempt of the order of the learned Single Judge in Crl.P.No.1683/2024 is not made out.
HC-KAR
6. It is pertinent to mention here that in the affidavit filed by the accused No.2, it is stated therein that due to his personal and family problems, he was unable to execute the sale deed as per the undertaking. It was for bona fide reason and not intentional. It is further stated that nonetheless he is ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant / petitioner in respect of the mentioned property as per the undertaking.
7. It is also pertinent to mention here that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the accused Nos.1 and 3, it is stated therein that even the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- that was the consideration of the agreement to sell has not been paid by the complainant. It is stated that a formal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was shown in the joint petition, which was actually not paid and therefore that resulted in breach of compromise.
HC-KAR
8. Under the circumstances, this contempt petition is consigned. The bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 and 2 are discharged.
Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE
Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE
KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45