1. Petitioners sought to quash criminal proceedings involving charges of unlawful assembly and creating public disorder, initiated based on allegations of inflammatory statements made at a religious site. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 55494
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V Srishananda, J
Mubarak Shariff – Appellant
Versus
State by K.R.Pet Rural P.S. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.6999 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Important Points
Criminal proceedings may be quashed as an abuse of the process of law when the prosecution's case relies exclusively on police testimonies without any independent corroboration.
Subject
Criminal - Quashing of Charge Sheet
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 143, 153, 117 and 149 - Quashing of charge sheet - Allegations of unlawful assembly and incitement to disturb social tranquility - Prosecution case rests solely on the testimony of police officials without any independent witnesses - Whether continuation of proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law - It is noted that gathering of persons near a Dargha on a Sunday is natural - If police were present and overheard illegal utterances, the failure to stop the activity immediately raises doubt - In the absence of independent witnesses, continuing proceedings based purely on police statements is an abuse of the process of law. (Paras 6, 7, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were charged in Crime No. 214/2019 for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly near Ghouse Peer Qadri Dargha, where the first petitioner, a member of PFI, allegedly incited the crowd to undermine social tranquility. The charge sheet was based on statements from the police raid party who claimed to have overheard the utterances while hiding behind a fence, with no independent witnesses cited.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the event happened on a Sunday at a religious site where gatherings are natural, and notably, no independent witnesses were examined to support the police version.
Issues: Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings based exclusively on the testimonies of police officials, without any independent corroboration, amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when a prosecution case relies entirely on the statements of police officials who were allegedly hiding and failed to intervene immediately, and where no independent witnesses are available, the proceedings are an abuse of the process of law and warrant quashing.
Result: Petition allowed and charge sheet quashed.
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were charged in Crime No. 214/2019 for allegedly forming an unlawful assembly near Ghouse Peer Qadri Dargha, where the first petitioner, a member of PFI, allegedly incited the crowd to undermine social tranquility. The charge sheet was based on statements from the police raid party who claimed to have overheard the utterances while hiding behind a fence, with no independent witnesses cited.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the event happened on a Sunday at a religious site where gatherings are natural, and notably, no independent witnesses were examined to support the police version.
Issues: Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings based exclusively on the testimonies of police officials, without any independent corroboration, amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that when a prosecution case relies entirely on the statements of police officials who were allegedly hiding and failed to intervene immediately, and where no independent witnesses are available, the proceedings are an abuse of the process of law and warrant quashing.
Result: Petition allowed and charge sheet quashed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saddam R. Mulla, Mohammed Tahir
For the Respondents: Waheeda M.M.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Saddam R. Mulla, Mohammed Tahir
For the Respondents: Waheeda M.M.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued that the gathering was natural for the occasion and that the prosecution lacked independent witnesses, relying solely on testimony from the same police raiding party. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. The court observed that the sole reliance on testimonies from police officials who conducted the raid, without any independent corroboration, renders the criminal proceedings an abuse of process. (Para 11 )
4. Criminal proceedings, lacking any independent evidence against the accused and relying exclusively on testimonies of the raiding police officers, are unsustainable when deemed an abuse of judicial process. (Para 11 , 12 )
5. Can criminal proceedings be sustained solely on the testimony of police officials who performed the raid?
No. When proceedings lack independent witnesses to corroborate the alleged criminal activity and rest entirely on the statements of the police team that conducted the raid, the court may conclude that continuation of such proceedings constitutes an abuse of the process of law. (Para 11 )
##PAGE1##
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA WRIT PETITION NO.6999 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MUBARAK SHARIFF S/O DOWLATH SHARIFF, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT BAZAR ROAD, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU – 571 105
2. NAJEEBULLA @ NAJEEB S/O HABIBULLA @ ABIBULLA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT SUBHASHNAGAR, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA -571426
3. IMRAN KHAN S/O SIDDIK, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, Digitally signed R/AT SUBHASHNAGAR, by R K R PETE TOWN, MANJUNATHA MANDYA -571 426 Location:
HIGH COURT OF 4. SALMAN KARNATAKA S/O ASHRAF, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT SUBHASHNAGAR, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA -571426
5. SAFEER AHAMED S/O USMAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT HEMAVATHI EXTENSION, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA -571426
##PAGE2##6. NADEEM S/O GOUSE, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT HEMAVATHI EXTENSION, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA -571426
7. MOHAMMED KALEEL S/O IRFAN AHAMMED, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT SHABBIRNAGAR, HUNSUR TOWN, MYSURU -571 105
8. MOHAMMED SALMAN S/O ABDUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT HEMAVATHI EXTENSION, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA -571426
9. SUHAIL @ SUHEL S/O HABIBULLA @ ABIBULLA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT SUBHASHNAGAR, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA -571426 10. SYED RIYAZ S/O SYED IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT ALAMBADI KAVAL VILLAGE, K R PETE TALUK, MANDYA -571605
11. SYAD SALMAN @ SYED SALMAN S/O SYED AREEF @ AREEF, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT BASAVANAGUDI BEEDI, 4TH WARD, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA -571426
##PAGE3##12. SYED SHARIFF @ SYED FAREED AHAMMED S/O SYED JAVEED, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT ALAMBADI KAVAL VILLAGE, K R PETE TALUK, MANDYA -571605
13. SYED SARVER @ SYED SARWAR S/O SYED KHAJIM, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT ALAMBADI KAVAL VILLAGE, K R PETE TALUK, MANDYA -571605
14. SYED JUBER @ SYED ZUBAIR AHMED S/O SYED FAYAZ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT ALAMBADI KAVAL VILLAGE, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA- 571605
15. MOHAMMED NADIM @ MOHAMMED NADEEM S/O MOHAMMED ISMAYIL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT ALAMBADI KAVAL VILLAGE, K R PETE TALUK, MANDYA -571605
16. SADDAM PASHA S/O SIRAJ PASHA @ SIRAJ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT ALAMBADI KAVAL VILLAGE, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA – 571605
##PAGE4##17. SHAFEEULLA S/O HABIBULLA @ ABIBULLA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT BASAVESHWARANAGAR, K R PETE TOWN, MANDYA -571426 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SADDAM R. MULLA FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE BY K.R.PET RURAL P.S.
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE AT ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT COMPLEX, OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE -560 001
2. LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PSI, K R PETE RURAL POLICE STATION, K R PET TALUK, MANDYA -571426 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.WAHEEDA.M.M, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 17.08.2020 PRESENT AT ANNEXURE-D IN CC NO.208/2020 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.214/2019 REGISTERED BY THE KR PET RURAL PS, UNDER SECTION 143,153,117,149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE PASSED BY THE HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KRISHNARAJPET AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
##PAGE5##CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Saddam R. Mulla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Mohammed Tahir, counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure with the following prayer:
Wherefore the petitioners most hujbly prays to this Hon’ble Court that this Hon’ble Court may be please to:
1. To set aside the Cognizance order dated 17/08/2020, present at Annexure-D in CC No.208/2020 arising out of crime no. 214/2019 registered by the KR Pet Rural PS, under section 143, 153, 117, 149 of IPC, passed by the Hon'ble SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KRISHNARAJPET.
##PAGE6##2. Consequently, quash
