Mohammed Faraz Ui Haq v. State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:46251( CRL.P(No.(12485(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010564662026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(27 (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,, Digitallytisigned by0PADMAVATHI REP,,BY,SPP,, B0K HIGH,COURT,BUILDING-560001., Location:0H igh Courttiof , Karnataka

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),

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

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.

¶2Heard 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.

¶3The 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.

¶4The 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

the jurisdictional police in Crime No.98/2026, for the offences under Sections 351, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS.

¶5In 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.

¶6The 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.

¶7Keeping open all the contentions of the parties, the criminal petition stands disposed.

¶8This 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

for two weeks from today, to enable the petitioner to avail of such remedies as are available in law, before the appropriate fora.

¶9It 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