Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/12485/2026 of MOHAMMED FARAZ UI HAQ Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 27 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010564662026 NC: 2026:KHC:46251 CRL.P No. 12485 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12485 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MOHAMMED FARAZ UI HAQ, S/O. MOHD. FAIYAZ UL HAQ,
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12485 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED FARAZ UI HAQ,
S/O. MOHD. FAIYAZ UL HAQ,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 22, 5TH CROSS, EX-SERVICEMAN
COLONY, NANDI VIEW LAYOUT, DINNUR MAIN
ROAD, R.T NAGAR POST, BANGALORE 560 032
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI NARASIMHAN S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE SOUTH CEN CRIME POLICE,
REP, BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING-560001.
2.
MOHAMMED EHSANULLA KHAZI,
S/O MOHAMMAD KALIMULLA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/A.FLAT NO. 601, 6TH FLOOR,
NO.60/1, LULU HOUSE, KHAZI STREET,
BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE 56004
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI LAXMIKANTHA K.B, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI
B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS)
CR.P.C TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR REGISTERED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
POLICE
IN
CRIME
NO.316/2026
DATED
16.07.2026
SOUTH
CEN
CRIME
POLICE
STATION,
FOR
OFFENCE P/U/S 66(D) OF IT ACT 2008 AND SEC.318(4) AND
319(2) OF BNS, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE
XLVII ACJM, BENGALURU CITY AT ANNEXURE A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
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
Petitioner - accused No.1 is before the Court calling in question registration of crime in crime No.316 of 2026, pending before the XLVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru city, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 319(2) of the BNS and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
2. Heard Sri Narasimhan S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Laxmikantha K.B., learned counsel for respondent No.2.
HC-KAR
3. The petitioner is the sole accused, accused No.1, second respondent, the complainant. The two have a transaction - a strange transaction. The petitioner at the relevant point in time was residing at Saudi Arabia. It transpires that the petitioner had set up a company in Saudi Arabia and the petitioner is said to have lured the complainant in a transaction. The transaction runs into `64/- lakhs all of which are by bank transfer from the bank account of respondent No.2 - the complainant to the bank account of the petitioner. When there was neither company nor the funds, it transpires that the complainant began to demand the money.
4. The story that is now twined by the petitioner is that he has lent `67/- lakhs to the complainant, when the petitioner demanded the said amount from the hands of the complainant, the complainant has abused him and therefore, the petitioner registers a crime in crime No.26/2026, for the offences under Sections 318(1), 329(4), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. After which, the petitioner is said to have filed another complaint for criminal intimidation by the complainant before
HC-KAR
the jurisdictional police in Crime No.98/2026, for the offences under Sections 351, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS.
5. In total there are three crimes, two by the petitioner and one against the petitioner. There may not be a case and a counter case but, a fact and a counter fact. Therefore, the investigation by the police in the matter, is a must in the least.
6. The State shall appoint a common Investigating officer, if not already appointed to investigate into the crimes and file a final report, after such investigation. In the event, the final report would go against any of the parties, the aggrieved party / parties is at liberty to re-approach this Court at that circumstance.
7. Keeping open all the contentions of the parties, the criminal petition stands disposed.
8. This Court in terms of the order dated 19.08.2026 has directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner nor harass the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has not secured bail. The order dated 19.08.2026, directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps shall thus, extend
HC-KAR
for two weeks from today, to enable the petitioner to avail of such remedies as are available in law, before the appropriate fora.
9. It is made clear that the interim protection so granted shall stand extended only for a period of two weeks from today, which would automatically get expired on the 16th day.
Ordered accordingly.
I.A.No.1/2026 stands disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40