The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against MLC Naseer Ahmed for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt, holding that the charge sheet contained no evidence showing that the alleged victim actually suffered any injury.
Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav ruled that the essential ingredient required to prove the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) - the existence of “hurt” - was missing from the material on record. The Court, however, left open the issue relating to the remaining charge under Section 341 IPC to be decided by the trial court.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident that allegedly took place on 10 July 2019 at Vidhana Soudha in Bengaluru.
According to the complaint, former MLA K. Sudhakar was heading towards the Speaker’s chamber to submit his resignation when he was allegedly obstructed near the lift at the west entrance of Vidhana Soudha. The complaint claimed that during the episode, some individuals dragged him towards the chambers of a minister and assaulted him.
Following the complaint, police registered Crime No. 59/2019 and eventually filed a charge sheet against Naseer Ahmed for offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the IPC. The case was later placed before the XLII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bengaluru.
Ahmed approached the High Court seeking quashing of the charge sheet, arguing that the materials collected during investigation did not disclose any offence against him.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner narrowed the challenge before the High Court to the offence under Section 323 IPC.
The defence argued that the investigation records did not contain any medical documents or wound certificate suggesting that the complainant had suffered any injury.
It was further submitted that the statements recorded during investigation merely alleged that the complainant had been pulled or obstructed, but there was no evidence that he suffered physical harm - an essential element required to constitute the offence of causing hurt.
The petitioner also informed the Court that he would raise his defence regarding the offence under Section 341 IPC at the appropriate stage before the trial court.
Court’s Observations
After examining the charge sheet and witness statements, the High Court found that the basic requirement for establishing the offence under Section 323 IPC was missing.
The Court noted that Section 323 is attracted only when “hurt” is actually caused to a person.
Referring to the statement of the complainant recorded during investigation, the bench observed that the allegations only described that he was “pulled, obstructed and shuffled.”
“The ingredients of Section 321 IPC must be satisfied for an offence under Section 323. Hurt must be caused,” the Court observed.
The Court also pointed out that the charge sheet did not include:
- Any medical records
- Any wound certificate
- Any witness testimony confirming injury
In the absence of such material, the Court held that the allegation of causing hurt could not stand.
“The charge sheet does not contain material establishing that hurt was caused,” the bench noted.
Court’s Decision
Based on these findings, the Karnataka High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Naseer Ahmed only in relation to the offence under Section 323 IPC.
The Court clarified that the petitioner’s other arguments relating to the remaining charge would remain open for consideration before the trial court.
Accordingly, the Court ordered that proceedings in C.C. No. 38171/2025 before the XLII ACJM, Bengaluru, stand set aside insofar as they relate to the offence under Section 323 IPC. The criminal petition was disposed of with these observations.
Case Title: Sri Naseer Ahmed vs State of Karnataka & Another
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 14932 of 2025
Decision Date: 26 February 2026
