Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/10013/2021 of A. FATHIMA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 10 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010479352021 NC: 2026:KHC:49458 CRL.P No. 10013 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10013 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. A . FATHIMA W/O M.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10013 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1.
A. FATHIMA
W/O M. ABUBACKAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
2.
MEERAN ABOOBAKAR
S/O A.MEERA SAHEB,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/O NO.927,
4TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK,
BEL LAYOUT,
BEHIND CAFE COFFE DAY,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BANGALORE NORTH
BANGALORE-560 097.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B L KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
KODIGEHALLI POLICE,
BEHIND RAILWAY GATE
PARALLEL ROAD,
KODIGEHALLI,
BANGALORE-560097.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 01.
2.
SRI. SYED MURTUZA ALI
S/O LATE SYED SARDAR ALI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR KODIGEHALLI,
BYTARAYANAPURA,
TATANAGARA,
3RD CROSS, 1ST FLOOR,
BBMP WARD NO.8,
BANGALORE-560 097.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M. DIWAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AMRUTHESH N P., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE F.I.R., AND COMPLIANT (ANNEXURE-A AND B) IN
CR.NO.151/2021 (FIR NO.151/2021 AND COMPLIANT DATED
09.11.2021) REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, BY THE
KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, ALLEGED TO BE
P/U/S.465, 468, 471, 420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC 1860 R/W
SEC.82 AND 83 OF REGISTRATION ACT 1908, ON THE FILE OF
THE 7TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT
BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
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
Heard Sri B.L.Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Diwakar Maddur, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Amruthesh N.P., learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the FIR registered based on complaint (Annexure-B) given by the Sub-Registrar, wherein an allegation is made that fake documents have been created by using the fake seal of the office.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, already a charge sheet has been filed in respect of Crime No.281/2018 (Annexure-C) and the same is numbered as C.C.No.17213/2020. Based on the said complaint, the police have already investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. The offences are also in respect of the very same allegation of creation of documents and the offences invoked are under Sections 420, 471, 468 read with Section 34
HC-KAR
of IPC. In Crime No.151/2021 also, the offences invoked are under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The learned counsel further contended that there cannot be two proceedings against the petitioner, one at the instance of the complainant, who is the original landowner and another by the State. However, in view of the stay granted by this Court in respect of Crime No.151/2021, no investigation has been conducted.
4. Having taken note of the fact that Crime No.281/2018 is also in respect of a similar transaction and that an additional crime has also been registered, the question of quashing the present proceedings does not arise. The police are given liberty to investigate the matter in respect of Crime No.151/2021 and if any material is found with regard to the allegations made in the complaint at Annexure-B, the respondent-police are directed to file an additional charge sheet in the charge sheet already filed, referred to supra.
5. The Trial Court is also directed to take up both the matters together, since there cannot be two criminal
HC-KAR
prosecutions in respect of the very same incident and the same has to be adjudicated together.
With the aforesaid observation, this Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39