- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION NO. 14360 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI VINAY KUMAR HADDANNAVAR @AKSHATHAA B HADDANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. MR. B.N. HADDANNAVAR R/A HEALTH CAMP, GADAG, BETAGERI - 582 102. PRESENTLY R/A NO.50, 1ST MAIN, 5TH CROSS, HOSAHALLI, VIJAYA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560001. 2. MR. SYED ULFAT HUSSAIN, IPS, NO.50/11, 101, GREEN HALL, RESIDENCY APARTMENT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGLORE CITY-560001. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 3. MR.AKSHAT HADDANNAVAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O MR.B.N.HADDANNAVAR, RESIDING AT HEALTH CAMP, GADAG, BETAGERI- 582102 (DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DTD: 27/7/2023) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDERS DATED 27/02/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU IN CC NO 32668/2011 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER In this petition filed under Article 226 r/w Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2, is seeking quashing of order dated 27.02.2023 in C.C.No.32668/2011 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 200, 177, 468, 471, 120-B r/w Section 34 of IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 2. In support of the petition, petitioner/accused No.2 Vinaykumar B.Haddannavar has contented that he is prosecuted mainly on the ground that accused No.1 has manipulated the documents in respect of his birth certificate and has impersonated by applying for the exam as Akshatha B.Haddannakar, so that he can sit by the side of accused No.1 and he wrote examination to help accused No.1. Even though CCTV footage is available, the same is not produced claiming that it is corrupted. All the material witnesses are already examined and there is nothing to link petitioner/accused No.2 to the crime. So far as the fingerprint evidence is concerned, the earlier report furnished by the State department negative his involvement. Now the thumb impression report is secured from a private lab, which is prohibited as per the Government order issued on the directions of order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.100822/2016. In the light of the same, the impugned order is challenged in this petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner / accused No.2 has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat and Anr. (Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya)1 (ii) Mariam Fasihuddin and Anr. Vs. Stat by Adugodi PS and Anr. (Mariam Fasihuddin)2 (iii) Ramachandra and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (Ramachandra)3 4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent No.1 State and learned counsel representing respondent No.2 submit that after conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 who are own brothers, alleging that during the recruitment for the post of PSI in the year 2009, they applied for the said post. Since accused No.1 was not eligible for applying for the said post, document of his date of birth is created and 1 2019 0 AIR (SC) 5233 [Crl.A.Nos.478-479/2017 Dt:16.10.2019] 2 Crl.A.No.335/2004 Dt:22.01.2024 :2024 255 AIC 144 3 Crl.P.No.100822/2016 Dt:23.11.2016 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 used it as genuine. Accused No.2, who is the younger brother of accused No.1 in order to help him to get selected for the post of PSI, gave false declaration regarding his name and parents name as well as his date of birth. Even though knowing that to help him for selection accused No.2 has given false information, accused No.1 has colluded with him to secure appointment. In fact, accused No.1 was selected at Sl.No.78 of the selection list. Only on the basis of an anonymous complaint, when detailed investigation was conducted the offence committed by both accused came to light and accordingly charge sheet is filed. 4.1 So far as the Circular of the Government prohibiting Government agencies approaching private labs for expert opinion, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that it is issued on 17.03.2017, as per the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.100822/2016 and therefore, it would not come in the way of relying upon the said report, which is prior to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 the Circular and therefore this Court is justified in passing the order. Learned High Court Government Pleader would further submit that accused No.2 is working as a Doctor in ESI hospital. He is worried about the outcome of the criminal case pending against him and making all efforts to throttle the trial by filing one petition after the other and securing stay. Consequently, though the charge sheet is filed in the year 2011, trial could not be completed and pray to dismiss the petition. 5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. R.S.Pai and Anr. (R.S.Pai)4. 6. Heard arguments and perused the record. 7. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.1 and 2 are own brothers. Their parents, Bhimappa and Kunkuma are having three children consisting of twins i.e, daughter Anita 4 AIR 2019 SC 1857 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 and son Akshath (accused No.1). Their third child is petitioner i.e, Dr.Vinay B.Haddannavar (accused No.2) is a Doctor by profession, Working in ESI Hospital. 8. From the complaint averments and the entire material placed in the charge sheet, it is the specific case of the prosecution that in the school records the date of birth of the twins, which includes accused No.1 Akshath is recorded as 28.05.1980 and the date of birth of accused No.2 Vinaykumar B.Haddannavar is recorded as 25.05.1981. 9. During 2006 and 2007, both accused No.1 Akshath B.Haddannavar and accused No.2 Vinaykumar B.Haddannavar have applied for the post of PSI in their original names, i.e, as Akshath B.Haddannavar and Vinaykumar B.Haddannavar. However, in the said applications, accused No.2 has given his date of birth as 28.05.1982, though in the school records, his date of birth is given as 25.05.1981. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 10. During 2006, the application numbers of accused Nos.1 and 2 were 102508 and 102507. Therefore, they were able to sit adjacent to each other. 11. Similarly, during 2007, the application numbers of accused Nos.1 and 2 were 12906 and 12907. Though they had given applications one after the other, they were not able to sit side-by-side, as during the said year, the sitting order of the candidates was made on the basis of first alphabet of their names. 12. It is alleged that since accused No.1 Akshath B.Haddannavar is not able to clear the exam on the basis of his own capabilities, in order to help him, both accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired and as a result of the conspiracy, accused No.2 Vinay filed application as Akshatha B.Haddannkar and father's name as Basappa and mother's name Mangala and his date of birth as 28.05.1982 to tally with the date of birth of accused No.1 Akshath B.Haddannavar, so that he would be able to sit adjacent to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 accused No.1 Akshath B.Haddannavar and help him with answers. For this, accused No.2 has given false declaration and concocted the thumb impression. In order to get the benefit accused No.1 Akshath B.Haddannavar colluded with accused No.2 Vinaykumar B.Haddannavar for securing appointment and also changed his date of birth as 28.05.1982, to get eligibility to apply. 13. As a result of the said conspiracy, during the year 2009, accused No.1 Akshath B.Haddannavar applied for the post in application No.76682 under category 2A. Accused No.2 Vinaykumar B.Haddannavar applied as Akshatha B.Haddannakar in application No.76683. Both of them cleared their physical and written examination and became eligible for viva. Accused No.1 Akshath B.Haddannavar attended the viva on 22.12.2009 and was selected at serial No.78. However, accused No.2 Vinaykumar B.Haddannavar who applied as Akshata B.Haddannakar did not attend the viva and as such he was - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 not selected. In this way, accused No.2 Vinaykumar B.Haddannavar by applying for the post as Akshatha B.Haddannakar, sat beside accused No.1 Akshath B.Haddannavar and helped him to pass the written examination and thereafter failed to appear for viva. 14. It is pertinent to note that the conspiracy and the resultant offence committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 did not come to the notice of the recruiting authorities when the examination and ultimately viva were held. Only after the concerned recruiting authorities received anonymous complaint and on making enquiry, this fact came to light. The allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 is not only accused No.2 Vinaykumar B.Haddannavar writing exam impersonating as Akshatha B.Haddannakar, but also changing his date of birth, parents’ name, etc., 15. One of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the LTM given in the application. When the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 LTM in question were referred to the FSL, a report is given to the effect that the said LTM mark is not clear and as such it could not be examined. Therefore, the investigating officer has referred it to Truth lab, wherein conclusive report is given. Based on the said report, the investigating officer has filed additional charge sheet. Vide order dated 02.05.2017, the trial Court accepted it. It was challenged by accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.5702/2017. As per order dated 08.02.2018, passed by this Court, the trial court has passed the impugned order. However, the accused No.2 has raised objections for accepting the additional charge sheet contending that as per circular No.HD 17 CWP 2017 dated 17.03.2017, which was issued on a directions given by this Court in Crl.P.100822/2016, the document in question ought not to have referred to a private lab. 16. It is pertinent to note that in Crl.P.No.100822/2016, on facts, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the concerned police have not conducted investigation dispassionately and on the other - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 hand they have sided with the accused and filed 'B' report. They have not conducted proper investigation to ascertain that the document is forged and have secured report favouring the accused by sending it to a private lab, instead of referring it to FSL. In this context, it directed the investigating officers to refer disputed documents to Government Forensic Labs and not to private labs, as there is possibility of manipulating reports with the help of the persons running private labs. It also gave a direction to the Home Secretary to issue Circular and accordingly, the Circular dated 17.03.2017 came to be issued. 17. However, in the present case, the document was referred to private lab prior to the order dated 23.11.2016 passed in Crl.P.No.100822/2016 and consequent Circular dated 17.03.2017. The FSL had given report dated 19.03.2011 to the effect that they could not examine the LTM for want of sufficient lines. It is not a report given in favour of the accused. With the permission of the trial Court, the investigating officer has taken back - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 the original record and referred it to the private lab and filed the additional charge sheet on 16.02.2017. Thus, the exercise to get the document examined by a private lab was done prior to the order of this Court dated 23.11.2016 in Crl.P.No.100822/2016 and Circular dated 17.03.2017. Therefore, there was no impediment for the investigating officer to get the documents examined by the private lab. 18. Moreover, the report of the scientific examination is one of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution. If, according to the accused there are any contradictory reports of FSL and Private lab, the accused is at liberty to take advantage of the same. It is not the only evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the accused persons. As already discussed, the offences committed by accused Nos.1 and 2 went unnoticed when the examinations were going on. But for the anonymous petition, this would have gone unnoticed and accused No.1 would have been working as a police officer and by this time he would have been promoted. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 19. The charge sheet is dated 26.09.2011. The accused persons more particularly accused No.2, are indulged in dragging on the proceedings by filing one or the other petition and getting the matter stayed. The intention of the accused persons, more particularly accused No.2 Vinaykumar B.Haddannavar is evident that the matter should not reach its logical conclusion, since he is working as a Doctor in ESI Hospital and if convicted, it is going to affect his service. Therefore, by filing one or the other petitions, matter is being dragged on. It is not only the responsibility of the Court to decide the matter at the earliest, but also both prosecution as well as accused are having responsibility to co-operate in speedy disposal of the case. 20. Considering all these aspects, vide impugned order, the trial Court has rightly accepted the additional charge sheet by over ruling the objections raised by the accused persons. In the light of the same and from the - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29029 WP No. 14360 of 2023 above discussion this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition is liable to be rejected. 21. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter at the earliest, not being influenced by the observation made during the course of this order. Both prosecution and accused are directed to co-operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) Petition filed by accused No.2 under Article 226 of constitution of India r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through email. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49