DR MOHAMMED FAIZAL vs THE STATE BY THE WOMEN POLICE STATION
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61388
CRL.P No. 3985 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010119642020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3985 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. DR MOHAMMED FAIZAL
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O MR. SHAMSUDEEN
2. SMT. JAHANARA SHAMSUDEEN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
W/O MR. SHAMSUDEEN
3. MR. MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM SHAMSUDEEN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
S/O MOHAMAD IBRAHIM
4. MISS. FARHEEN IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
D/O MR. SHAMSUDEEN
ALL ARE R/O NO.4
V.P.M. AVENUE
NOLAMBUR UNINI ROAD
CHENNAI-600095
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUKUMARAN G, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1.
THE STATE BY
THE WOMEN POLICE STATION
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61388
CRL.P No. 3985 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010119642020
EAST ZONE
PULAKESHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU-560054
REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUOTR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 01
2. MRS. SABA AFZAL
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
W/O DR.MD. FAIZAL
ST
NO.7, 1 FLOOR
V/S PARANJYOTHI ROAD
STEPHENS ROAD
FRAZER TOWN
BENGALURU-560005
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUHAS GOWDA M, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SYED AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R2 [ABSENT])
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
TH
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.123/2019 PENDING BEFORE THE 6
A.C.M.M. COURT AT BENGALURU DATED 08.11.2019 U/S 498A
AND 506 OF IPC AND R/W SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT OF
THE FIRST RESPONDENT/THE WOMEN P.S., SHIVAJI NAGAR,
EAST ZONE, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61388
CRL.P No. 3985 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010119642020
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the FIR in
Cr.No.123/2019 initiated against the petitioners for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and
Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1/State. Though respondent No.2
is represented through the counsel, the said counsel is absent.
3. The main contention of the counsel appearing for
the petitioners that already a complaint was filed by respondent
No.2/complainant at Chennai on 30.10.2019 before the
Inspector of Police, W8 of All Woman Police Station,
Thirumangalam in CSR No.341/2019 wherein allegations of
498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act are made in the
said complaint against the petitioners. The counsel also would
submit that in view of the registration of the case at Chennai,
these petitioners have granted the anticipatory bail in respect
of the said crime. The counsel also contend that in continuation
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61388
CRL.P No. 3985 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010119642020
of her nefarious activities, by suppressing the complaint lodged
by her at Chennai, second complaint is filed at Woman Police
Station, East Zone, Pulakeshi Nagar, Bengaluru alleging similar
set of facts of the first complaint. Based on same, FIR was
registered in Crime No.123/2019 which is the subject matter of
this petition wherein also similar allegations are made against
the same petitioners that they are making physical harassment
and giving life threat to her and minor child and threatening to
share her personal photo and other data.
4. The counsel for the petitioners would vehemently
contend there cannot be two complaints making similar
allegations. It is nothing but an abuse of process. The counsel
also brought to notice of this Court that based on the second
complaint, these petitioners also appeared before the
Bengaluru Court in respect of Crime No.123/2019. The counsel
would contend that the first complaint filed at Chennai is also
pending for consideration. Hence, it requires interference of this
Court.
5. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State
would submit that both the complaints are different dates.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61388
CRL.P No. 3985 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010119642020
Earlier complaint is dated 30.10.2019 and present complaint is
filed on 08.11.2019. But not disputes the fact that similar
allegations are made in both the complaints.
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material on
record, it discloses that there are two complaints i.e., one at
Chennai and another one at Bengaluru on the similar set of
facts. When at the first instance, already complaint was filed at
Chennai and case has been registered, if any subsequent
complaint is filed, that should be a part of first complaint and if
any statements to be recorded by the Chennai police, that only
under Section 162 and there cannot be any subsequent
registration of the case in respect of the similar set of facts and
the same is a settled law.
7. The Court also held that there cannot be two
complaints and even if such a subsequent complaint is filed,
only under Section 162, statement can be recorded by the
earlier police. When such being the case, it is nothing but an
abuse of process and there cannot be two complaints in respect
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61388
CRL.P No. 3985 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010119642020
of the similar set of allegations made at the first instance as
well as in the subsequent instance.
8. This petition was filed before this Court on
02.03.2020 and this Court had granted the stay on 25.01.2021
but charge sheet was already on 27.09.2020. When complaint
was filed earlier at Chennai and the same was registered and
again one more complaint is filed in Bengaluru and the same is
also registered on the similar set of facts, there cannot be two
prosecutions in respect of the similar allegations. Even charge
sheet is also filed in the present case and the same cannot be
entertained in view of the fact that already case was registered
at Chennai, the complainant can pursue the complaint which
was filed first at Chennai and not the second complaint filed at
Bengaluru on the similar allegations. Hence, it requires
interference of this court.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61388
CRL.P No. 3985 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010119642020
ii. The FIR in Cr.No.123/2019 registered against the
petitioners for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of
D.P. Act is hereby quashed.
iii. Even subsequent charge sheet filed against the
petitioners in C.C.No.3645/2021 is also quashed
since the said charge sheet cannot be entertained in
view of already case was registered at Chennai and
the same can be pursued at Chennai.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
SN