- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1550 CRL.P No. 201032 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201032 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MEDHAVINI KATTI, D/O SHEKARAPPA KATTI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: INCHARGE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION), GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, KALABURAGI. R/O. KALABURAGI. 2. SWAROOP S/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC: SDA, GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, KALABURAGI, R/O. KHUSNOOR, KALABURAGI-585106. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, ASHOK NAGAR P.S. KALABURAGI, THROUGH ITS JURISDICTIONAL POLICE, ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT, KALABURAGI BENCH. 2. SRI NAGARAJ S/O HANAMANTHRAO BHANDE, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: SOCIAL WORKER, R/O. BASAVA NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585103. Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1550 CRL.P No. 201032 of 2024 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1 SRI SANTOSH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA,2023 PRAYING TO a) ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 117/2024 BNS 2023 (U/SEC.318(4), 319(2), 336(2) OF ASHOK NAGAR P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED V ADDL. JMFC AT KALABURAGI. b) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) The petitioners have filed this petition seeking to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.117/2024 of Ashok Nagar, Police Station, Kalaburagi pending on the file of the learned V Addl. JMFC at Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1550 CRL.P No. 201032 of 2024 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the complainant has lodged a complaint stating that the B.Ed. examination was held between 01.07.2024 to 07.07.2024 at Al-Badar B.Ed. college within the limits of Gulbarga University and 100 students belonging to other States stated to have attended the examination, which is contrary to the order passed by this Court in WP No.202025/2023 dated 21.07.2023. As per the said order only 22 students were allowed to write examination. 3. The petitioners being in-charge Registrar (Evaluation) and SDA of Gulbarga University were taking advantage of the order passed by this Court, stated to have accommodated 100 students to write examination in furtherance of common intention, therefore, a complaint came to be registered against the petitioner and others. FIR came to be registered in Crime No.117/2024. The investigation of the case is under progress. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1550 CRL.P No. 201032 of 2024 4. Heard Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Santosh Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are the officials at Gulbarga University and they have lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 08.07.2024. The Assistant Commissioner of Police has endorsed the said complaint on 09.03.2024. However, no action has been taken against the said complaint. In case, if the respondent-police had acted upon the complaint given by the petitioners, the present complaint would not have been filed. Registering the complaint by suppressing the earlier complaint of the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the FIR has to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently, opposed the submission and he further submitted that the petitioners might have - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1550 CRL.P No. 201032 of 2024 lodged the complaint before the police prior to the present complaint, however, the jurisdictional police did not register a case as the complaint contains no specific allegations against persons. 7. It is further submitted that the averments of the complaint prima facie would indicate that both petitioners have committed the offences as stated supra. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the complaint at this stage. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8. Similarly, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently opposed the petition and he further submitted that the investigation cannot be stalled at the initial stage. Prima facie there are allegations made out against the petitioners, a detailed investigation has to be carried out and the respondent-police have to ascertain the veracity of the case. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings at this stage. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1550 CRL.P No. 201032 of 2024 9. Before adverting to the merit of the case, it is appropriate to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mitesh Kumar J. Sha Vs. State of Karnataka,1 Paragraph No.40, which reads as under: “40.-On an earlier occasion, in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] , this Court has also observed : (SCC p. 643, para 8) “8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process 1 (2022) 14 SCC 572 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 976 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1550 CRL.P No. 201032 of 2024 of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, a complaint came to be registered by the third party stating that the accused Nos.1 to 5 in furtherance of common intention, have permitted 100 students to write B.Ed. Examination in which many of the students were not eligible to write the same. 11. The petitioner No.1 being in-charge Registrar (Evaluation) had lodged the complaint before the respondent-police and other higher officials and brought to their notice that the collage authority namely Smt. Indira Gandhi Educational Trust was being committed several malpractices and also illegally allowing the students to write examinations etc, however, no action has been taken against the institution/authority. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1550 CRL.P No. 201032 of 2024 12. However, the complainant in this case has lodged the complaint on 08.07.2024, making certain allegations against all the accused persons which are baseless and bald against the petitioners herein. Having considered the averments of the complaint, even on reading of the entire complaint, there is no case made out against the petitioners. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that it would be an abuse of process of law, if the petitioners are allowed to appear before the respondent-police for the frivolous and baseless complaint. 13. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. FIR and complaint in Crime No.117/2024 is quashed as against the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 & 3. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1550 CRL.P No. 201032 of 2024 iii. Liberty is reserved to the respondent-police to proceed as against the other three accused in accordance with law. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT:PK