Karnataka High Court
Siraj Ahmed Jafferi vs Samreen Begum on 28 April, 2026
1 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200394 OF 2026
(482(Cr.PC)/528 (BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SIRAJ AHMED JAFFERI
S/O ZAHEER AHMED
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCC: ADVOCATE
R/AT, 1-11-4192, VIVEKANANDA COLONY
NEAR LIONS CLUB SCHOOL
RAICHUR-584101
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.TAHIR CHAND PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAMREEN BEGUM
W/O SULTAN
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.1-MIG-II KHB
COLONY
YERAMARUS CAMP, RAICHUR-584101
2. STATE BY RAICHUR CEN CRIME PS.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH Court OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
INVESTIGATION AGENCY-585107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHBUDDIN, HCGP FOR R2;
SRI. MOHAMMED KALEEM ADV., FOR R1)
2 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS (NEW) U/SEC.
482 OF CR.P.C (OLD) PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN PRIVATE COMPLAINT NO.1/2026 AT
ANNEXURE-A SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERN, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.21(1)(2)(3) OF BANNING OF
UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT 2019 (BUDS ACT)
U/SEC.406, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR
WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.15;
2) TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT NO.1/2026 DATED
17.02.2026 AT ANNEXURE-B SO FAR AS PETITIONERS
CONCERN, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC 21(1)(2)(3) OF
BANNING OF UNREGULATE DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT 2019
(BUDS ACT) U/SEC. 406, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAICHUR
WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.15
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 24.04.2026, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners are filed this petition seeking
following relief:
"Wherefore it is respectfully prayed before this
Hon'ble court may be pleased,
1. To Quash the entire proceedings in Private
complaint no. 1/2026 at Annexure-A so far as
petitioners concern, for the alleged offences U/sec 21
(1) (2) (3) of banning of unregulated deposit
schemes act 2019 (buds act) u/sec 406, 420 r/w 34
of IPC pending on the file of Principal District and
Session Judge Raichur wherein the petitioner is
arrayed as accused no. 15, in the interest of Justice
and equity.
3 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
2. To quash the Private complaint no. 1/2026
dated 17/02/2026 at Annexure-B so far as
petitioners concern, for the alleged offences U/sec 21
(1)(2) (3) of banning of unregulated deposit schemes
act 2019 (buds act) u/sec 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC
pending on the file of Principal District and Session
Judge Raichur wherein the petitioner is arrayed as
accused no. 15, in the interest of Justice and equity.
3. Pass any order as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit in the circumstances of the case."
2. The brief facts of the case is as under:
The Petitioner is an Advocate by profession, a
member of the Bar, and practicing before various Courts.
Respondent/Complainant has filed a private complaint
before the Learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Raichur, against Accused Nos. 1 to 13, who are stated to
be the Directors and Agents of Darvesh Group, and also
arrayed Accused No. 14 and Accused No. 15 (the present
Petitioner), who are Advocates representing the sald
Directors and Agents in Darvesh Group.
3. It is alleged in the private complaint that
Accused Nos. 1 to 13, being the Directors and Agents of
Darvesh Group, In furtherance of a common intention and
pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, committed offences of
4 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
cheating, forgery, fraud, and other allied offences by
inducing innocent and law-abiding citizens of Raichur and
other places to invest/deposit money in the said Darvesh
Group Company. It is further alleged that they instigated
and influenced investors by assuring that the Company
would pay 10% monthly returns on the invested amount
on or before the 5th day of every month.
4. The complaint further alleges that the Company
knowingly made false, deceptive, and misleading
statements and promises, and deliberately concealed
material facts with the intention to induce persons to
invest in or become participants in an unregulated deposit
scheme run by the said Company.
5. It is specifically alleged that on 30.03.2023, the
Respondent/Complainant invested a sum of 5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lakhs only) in Darvesh Group, represented
by Accused Nos. 1 to 3, under Bond No. 2N2KP1 with an
assurance of 10% monthly returns. It is further alleged
that on 30.03.2024, another investment was made under
Bond No. KRV8MV on similar terms promising 10%
5 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
monthly profit. Subsequently, according to the
Complainant, she lost the said invested amounts due to
the alleged fraud, cheating, and forgery committed by
Accused Nos. 1 to 13.
6. Insofar as the present Petitioner (Accused No.
15) is concerned, the allegation in the private complaint is
that he is an Advocate representing the Directors and
Agents of Darvesh Group. It is alleged that when the
Respondent/Complainant and her husband, Mr. Sultan,
decided to lodge a complaint on 22.07.2024, the Petitioner
and Accused No. 14 (also an Advocate) requested them
not to initiate criminal proceedings, stating that efforts
were being made to pacify and settle the matter. It is
further alleged that in the month of September 2024, both
the said Advocates gave an interview on social media
wherein they allegedly undertook that the amount
invested by the Respondent would be refunded.
7. The respondent has filed the private complaint
before the learned Principal District and session Judge
raichur to take legal action against the petitioner/advocate
6 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
for the same cause of action and same offences in-spite of
pendency of criminal proceedings against the Darvesh
Group company and accused no.1 to 13 bearing CRIME
NO. 8/2024 (SPL.FIR NO. 46/2024) (SPL.C. (CEN) NO.
483/2024) of Raichur CEN police station for the offence
punishable U/sec 21 (1)(2) (3) of banning of unregulated
deposit schemes act 2019 (buds act) u/sec 406, 420 r/w
34 of IPC pending on the file of Principal District and
Session Judge Raichur.
8. On 18/02/2026 The learned Principal District
and Session Judge Raichur acting under the section 175(3)
of BNSS, without applying the judicial mind passed the
order by directing the CEN Police Raichur to investigate
the matter and file a report for the matter already
investigated and preliminary chargesheet is filed by CID
against the same accused and same offences and same
cause of action. Whereas there was no compliance of
section 173(4) of BNSS which mandatory to file any
private complaint.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner urged the following grounds to quash the
proceedings as under:
i. It is submitted that the petitioner is a practicing
advocate and a member of the Bar, and is representing
the accused persons (Directors and Agents) in the case
pertaining to Darvesh Group. Except discharging his
professional duties as counsel, the petitioner has no
manner of connection with the alleged transaction. There
are absolutely no specific allegations made against the
petitioner in the private complaint, nor is there any
averment attributing personal involvement or overt act on
his part in the alleged offence. Despite the absence of any
material or prima facie case against the petitioner, the
learned Trial Court has mechanically issued directions to
conduct Investigation and submit a report even against
the petitioner. The said direction has been passed without
application of judicial mind and without recording any
reasons as to how the petitioner is connected with the
alleged crime. The impugned proceedings, insofar as they
8 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
relate to the petitioner, are therefore a clear abuse of the
process of law and are liable to be quashed in the Interest
of justice. Copy of Bar ID card of the petitioner is
presented herewith as Annexure-C.
ii. It is respectfully submitted that at the outset
neither there is any ingredient of the alleged offence nor
before filing private complaint before the magistrate
mandatory procedure of section 173(4) is not followed,
which not only vitiate the order but also make impugned
order non-est.
iii. It is respectfully submitted that a bare reading
of the entire averments made in the private complaint
would clearly demonstrate that there are no allegations
whatsoever constituting any offence against the petitioner.
The complaint does not disclose any specific role, overt
act, or participation attributed to the petitioner in the
commission of the alleged crime. And the petitioner, being
a practicing advocate, has merely discharged his
professional duty by representing the accused persons in
the matter relating to Darvesh Group. Merely because the
9 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
petitioner is safeguarding the legal rights of his clients in
his capacity as an advocate, the respondent has
unjustifiably dragged the petitioner into the criminal
proceedings and arrayed him as an accused. Such
implication of the petitioner is mala fide, legally
unsustainable, and amounts to gross abuse of the process
of law. Hence, the proceedings insofar as they pertain to
the petitioner are liable to be quashed.
iv. It is submitted that, recently while passing
interim order in the case of Yaseen saleha vs State of
Karnataka in criminal petition no. 1270/2026 this
Hon'ble court has taken the view that,
"Merely because he has represented the accused
No.1 in several cases pending between the two, he is
now dragged into the web of crime by a complaint
registered against the Advocate by the 2nd
respondent/complainant. The case projects a very
dangerous and emerging trend from the hands of the
complainants. The complainants have begun to
implicate the Advocates for penal consequences, only
because they are representing the accused, alleging
highly improbable offences. The Court has come
across umpteen number of cases of the kind, where
there would be no rhyme or reason to drag the
Advocates into the web of the crime.
If this trend is permitted to be continued, it would
have a chilling effect on the profession, as every
Advocate who represents an accused, will be brought
under the web of investigation for a crime and the
10 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
crime is, representing the accused in any other case.
Therefore, the police prior to registration of the crime
against the Advocates, may have to hold a peripheral
enquiry, with regard to the nature of allegations
being made by the complainants, who would want to
settle scores against the Advocates who represents
the accused."
Copy of the interim order in criminal petition
no.1270/2026 is presented herewith as Annexure-D.
v. It is further submitted that the learned Trial
Court has failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the
impugned order and has mechanically directed
investigation and submission of report even against the
present petitioner/advocate, without there being any
specific allegations or material on record. The order does
not reflect consideration of the settled principles governing
issuance of such directions and is therefore legally
unsustainable.
vi. It is further submitted that the very same
matter has already been investigated by the Criminal
Investigation Department (CID), and a preliminary charge
sheet has been filed against Accused Nos. 1 to 13 for the
same offences arising out of the same cause of action. In
such circumstances, directing a fresh investigation on
identical allegations, including against the petitioner,
11 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
amounts to subjecting the parties to parallel
proceedings/Double Jeopardy for the same cause, which is
impermissible in law. The impugned direction therefore
results in violation of the petitioner's fundamental rights
guaranteed under the Constitution of India and is liable to
be set aside as being an abuse of the process of law.
vii. It is submitted that, the order of directing to
investigate the matter passed by the learned trial court is
contrary law, as the matter is already investigated by CID
police and filed the chargesheet before the same court,
against the same accused, in CRIME NO. 8/2024 (SPL.FIR
NO. 46/2024) (SPL.C. (CEN) NO. 483/2024) of Raichur
CEN police station for the offence punishable U/sec 21
(1)(2) (3) of banning of unregulated deposit schemes act
2019 (buds act) u/sec 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC pending on
the file of Principal District and Session Judge Raichur. For
the same allegation, cause of action, same accused
persons the respondent has filed Private complaint is
amount to Double Jeopardy and violation of Article 20(2)
of the constitution of India fundamental right and liable to
12 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
quash. Copy of head of chargesheet of SPL.FIR NO.
46/2024) (SPL.C.(CEN) NO. 483/2024) is presented
herewith as Annexure-E.
viii. It is submitted that, no specific allegation is
made out against the petitioner and no ingredient of
alleged offenses are attract against the petitioner, No
Dishonest or Fraudulent Intention is shown in the
complainant, to drag the petitioner into false criminal
proceedings and harass the petitioner, the respondent has
arrayed the petitioner as accused in his complainant
therefore there no basic Essential ingredients of any
offences are made out against the petitioner and
proceedings are liable to quash.
ix. It is submitted that the Proceedings Fall
Squarely Under Bhajan Lal Categories, laid down in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, particularly, Where allegations
do not disclose a cognizable offence, the criminal
proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide intent
and Continuation of Proceedings Amounts to Abuse of
Process by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue
13 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
would result in grave injustice, harassment, and abuse of
the criminal justice system, warranting quashing to secure
the ends of justice.
x. It is respectfully submitted that the above case
has already been investigated and charge-sheeted by the
Criminal Investigation Department (CID). In the said
charge sheet, the petitioner-being a practicing advocate-
has not been arrayed as an accused, as he has no manner
of connection with the alleged offence and insofar as
Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, this Hon'ble Court has
been pleased to stay the entire proceedings in Criminal
Petition No. 200097/2025. Despite the same, and without
any fresh material or new cause of action, the respondent
has filed the present private complaint on identical facts
and allegations and the filing of a second complaint on the
very same set of facts, when the matter has already been
investigated and charge-sheeted, is contrary to settled
principles of criminal jurisprudence and amounts to abuse
of the process of law. The same is in clear violation of the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
14 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
T.T. Antony vs State of Kerala (2001) AIR(SC) 2637
has clearly held the provisions of Sections 154 155 156
157 162 169 170 and 173 of Cr.P.C. only the earliest or
the first information in regard to the commission of a
cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section
154 Cr.P.C. Thus there can be no second F.I.R. and
consequently there can be no fresh investigation on
receipt of every subsequent information in respect of the
same cognizable offence or the same occurrence or
incident giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On
receipt of information about a cognizable offence or an
incident giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and
on entering the F.I.R. in the station house diary, the
officer in charge of a Police Station has to investigate not
merely the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also
otherc onnected offences found to have been committed in
the course of the same transaction or thesame occurrence
and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 of
the Cr.P.C.
15 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
Copy of Interim order in Criminal Petition
No.200097/2025 is presented herewith as Annexure-F.
xi. It is submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
also took a similar view that the filing of second FIR on the
basis of the given facts and circumstances of the first FIR
is unwarranted and violation of fundamental rights under
Articles 14, 12, 20, 13 and 21 of the Constitution.
xii. It is submitted that, it is Improper to drag the
petitioner into criminal proceedings without any specific
accusations and same is against the principle of natural
justice and violation of fundament rights and criminal
proceedings cannot be used as a tool to dragging the
advocates who represent the other accused persons.
xiii. It is submitted that, petitioners are respectful
citizen having deep roots in society and not any criminal
antecedent and there is no legal embargo to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners.
11. On all these grounds sought for allow this
petition.
16 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
12. The respondent No.2 has filed his statement of
objection in which it is stated as under:
i. That, for the purpose of notice, summons
issued by this Hon'ble Court the address of the
Respondent is shown in the above cause title and the
address of the counsel is of Sri. Mohammed Kaleem
and Abdul Majeed Advocates, H.No.3-1-25, Beroon
Quilla, Raichur 584 101. Cell No.9845792828.
ii. That, the Respondent filed private
complaint No. 01/2026 Under Section 223 of BNSS
Act Corresponding to Sec. 200 of CRPC, Against
Accused No. 1 to 15 Under Offences: 21(1), (2), (3),
Under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes
Act 2019 R/W Sec. 406,420,34 of IPC.
iii. That, the above named accused persons
jointly by hatching conspiracy with a malafide
intention committed the offences of cheating,
forgery, fraud and other offences by looting, by
extortion of money by calling the innocent law
abiding citizens of Raichur and other places for
investment/deposit in the said so called company of
Darwesh Group of Company Raichur, by instigating
and influencing the investors that the said company
guaranteed to the investors whatever amount
investing, the company will give 10% on every
month on or before 5th day of month as per English
calendar, that the said company knowingly made
statement promise or forecast which is false,
deceptive or misleading in material fact or
deliberately concealment, to induce another person's
to invest in, or become a member or participant of
any unregulated deposit scheme run by the said fake
Darwesh Group of Company.
iv. That, first of all that the above so called
company is not at all registered with the Government
of Karnataka or any it's departments and also to the
extent of there is no any permission of the
Government of Karnataka as well as the Government
17 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
of India to run such a fake Company that is Darwesh
Group Raichur.
v. That, the complainant invested
Rs.5,00,000/- on dated: 30th March 2023 bond No.
2N2KP1 and Rs.4,00,000/ dated:30th March 2024
bond No. KRV8MV lot of money by not knowing the
law and the said company cheated to me by
fraudulent and forgery activities.
vi. That, due to fraud, cheating, forgery and
economic offences, myself after losing money and
earnings I become homeless and putting starvation,
and even I suffering mentally torture.
vii. When I and my husband Sultan decided
to file complaint 22nd July 2024, the accused No. 14
and 15 Advocates requested me not to launch the
complaint as they pacifying settling the matter,
thereafter, both the advocates given interview in a
social media in the Month of September 2024 that
both are undertaking to refund whatever amount
spend by me, as the amount/money is in our custody
and they have requested me not to commit suicide
etc and they assured for refund of whatever amount
deposited/invested by me. For which till the date of
filing of this compliant dated: 19.01.2026 (copy of
complaint also enclosed) thereafter the said
compliant filed before Superintendent of Police
Raichur, and he send the said complaint to the CID
and COD Bangalore and till this day there is no
response, no action and even there is no arrest of
accused persons.
viii. As per document number R1 the certified
copy of Private Complaint, document NO.R2 the
certified copy of FIR, document No.R3 certified copy
of Order sheet, as per document No.R4 footage of
DVD Cassette in P.C.No.01/2026, produced by
Respondent for kind perusal of the Hon'ble Court.
ix. That, it is submitted one person Mr.
Chandru only lodge a complaint Against accused No.
1 to 4 under Crime No. 8/2024 in CEN Police Station,
Raichur, and the said police station file the charge
sheet. It is draw to the Hon'ble Court the other
18 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
investors not at all filed any complaint for which
relying in respect of Crime No.8/2024 of CEN Police
Station, Raichur, does not legally stop to this
respondent No.1 to prosecute all the accused No. 1
to 15. It is submitted that on being misleading and
suppression of facts they obtained stay order in
Crl.Petition No. 200097/2025, due to said Stay Order
the accused persons flee and ran away from the
spot, it is further submit that the Accused No. 14 and
15 taken risk and responsibility that whatever
amount the investors amount refund back as the said
amount is in the custody of the Accused No. 14 and
15. And all the accused persons become escape got
from the law and they not available for fair trial by
not depositing entire amount of big scam of Rs.500
Crores. The address of the accused No. 1 to 13 very
well known by accused No. 14 & 15 and they not
helping to the prosecution for their arrest and also
for recovery of huge amount.
x. That, the footage video cassette is herein
produced through list of documents in respect of
undertaking of Accused No. 14 & 15 for refund of
investors money.
xi.That, there are no sufficient and legimate
grounds made out in the complaint and same is liable
to be dismiss.
13. On all these grounds sought for dismissal of this
petition.
14. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court.
15. The complaint is filed under Section 223 of
BNSS, by the complainant against accused Nos.1 to 15 for
the commission of offence under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34
19 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
of IPC and Section 21(1)(2)(3) of the Banning of
Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. This complaint is
supported with the affidavit of the complainant. After filing
this complaint, case is registered in P.C.No.01/2026 on the
file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Raichur,
and the Court passed the following order.
"Complainant present.
This is the compliant filed by the complainant U/sec.
223 of BNSS-2023 against the accused for the
offences punishable U/sec. 21(1) (2) (3) Under the
BUDS-2019 and 406, 420, 34 of IPC.
Heard the complainant and perused the allegations in
the complaint as well as affidavit filed by the
complainant in support of the allegations in the
compliant.
There are similar cases against the accused for
similar offences. The matter already under further
investigation before CEN Police Raichur.
Since the prima-facie truth is found in the
allegations, I feel that the matter need to be
investigated by the CEN Police. Hence following:
ORDER
In exercise of power vested under Section 175(3) of BNSS-2023 matter stand referred to the CEN Police Raichur for investigation and report according to the law.
Await final report by 01.04.2026."
20 Crl.P No.200394 OF 2026
16. On perusal of the averments made in the complaint, the trial Court has rightly observed that there is a prima facie truth in the allegations made against the accused and referred the matter for investigation under Section 175(3) of BNSS. Hence, I do not find any legal or factual error in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE TIN/msr