- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11355 CRL.P No. 103094 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103094 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: LAKKAPPA S/O LAXMAN BETAGERI, AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. BADIGER THOTA, SAVASUDDI VILLAGE, TQ. RAIBAGH, DIST. BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH GOKUL ROAD POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580 011. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 15.12.2022 IN CRIME NO.61/2020 BEARING CHARGE-SHEET NO.01/2022 OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND INITIATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1473/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC III COURT HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11355 CRL.P No. 103094 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Accused No.2 is before this Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.1473 of 2023 pending before the Court of JMFC, III Court, Hubballi arising out of Crime No.61 of 2020 registered by Gokul Road Police Station, Hubballi for offences punishable under Sections 109, 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if allegations found in the first information or in the charge sheet are presumed to be true, the alleged offences do not get attracted against the petitioner. There is no complaint from any private party alleging that he has been cheated. The charge sheet materials are not sufficient to prosecute the petitioner for the alleged offences. The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter and has erred in taking cognizance of the charge sheeted offences against the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. She submits that accused No.1 has impersonated the petitioner, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11355 CRL.P No. 103094 of 2025 who was a candidate for examination and had appeared on behalf of the petitioner for the exams that was held to the post of Police Constable. Charge sheet material clearly establishes prima facie case against the petitioner. Accordingly, she prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Material on record would go to show that, based on credible information received about malpractice in the written examination that was held to the post of Special Constable KSRP for men and women at K.L.E. Engineering College, Gokul road, the first informant, who is a Police Officer along with the staff visited the aforesaid examination center and with the assistance of invigilators in the examination hall, verified the hall tickets of the candidates and it was found that accused No.1, who was working as a Police Constable had impersonated the petitioner, who was the actual candidate for the examination and on his behalf had appeared in the written examination that was held on 22.11.2020. Allegation against accused No.3 is that he had created fraudulent Aadhar cards, affixing the photo of accused No.1 in the Aadhar card of the accused No.2. Accused No.4 allegedly was assisting accused Nos.1 and 3 and was soliciting candidates who had earlier failed in their written examination - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11355 CRL.P No. 103094 of 2025 that was held for the post of Special Constable. Accused No.5 is said to be the owner of a photo studio, who was assisting accused Nos.3 and 4 for editing the photos in the Aadhar cards of the candidates. 6. Any act of a person done with an intention to make profit or to take advantage from another person by using deceitful means, can be considered as cheating. Petitioner who was the actual candidate for the examination had not appeared for the written examination and on the other hand, based on the fraudulent documents, accused No.1 had impersonated the petitioner and had appeared for the written examination. The petitioner, therefore, very well knew that this act of the petitioner would place another candidate in an unfair situation and therefore, the offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 of IPC is made out against the petitioner, which is punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The acts committed by the petitioner also clearly attract the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of IPC. The documents were forged in this case with an intention to cheat and all the accused had together conspired to commit the crime. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11355 CRL.P No. 103094 of 2025 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1 has held as follows: “35. xxxxx 10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. 36. 36. xxxxx Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: 1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission; 2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or 1 (2024) 10 SCC 690 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11355 CRL.P No. 103094 of 2025 3) The consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712)” 8. In the case of Nidhi Kaim vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.134 has observed as follows: “134. Examination malpractices, academic fraud or cheating in the examination is as old as the examination itself. Study made by the educationist has revealed that these malpractices are gradually on the rise across the world and has caused a threat to public trust in reliability and credibility to the system as a whole. These malpractices occur within and outside the examination halls and are perpetrated by the candidates, staff and other external agencies before, during and after the examination. Various kinds of strategies are innovated and then applied to enable the candidate to clear the examination any how. It has, therefore, destroyed the piousness of the examination. With a view to prohibit such activities, State of A.P. had enacted a legislation but it was found inadequate to control such activities.” 2 (2016) 7 SCC 615 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11355 CRL.P No. 103094 of 2025 9. Malpractices by candidates in competitive exams needs to be viewed seriously, as the same would not only impact the credibility of the examinations that are held but put many other meritorious candidates in a disadvantage position and as a result, meritorious candidates may lose a chance of being selected. 10. The material collected against the petitioner in the present case makes out a prima facie case for the alleged offences and therefore, I do not find any good ground to entertain this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE RSH CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30