- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11838 CRL.P No. 100395 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100395 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. HANUMANT @ AIYAPPA S/O SHREEMANTHA MESTRI, AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. ADI JAMBAV NAGAR, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-590 001. … PETITIONER (BY SRI.SADYOJAT R. BALOGATTIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MALMARUTI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580 011. 2. SRI. PRAVEEN C. YALIGAR, OCC. POLICE INSPECTOR, CID BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 001, REPRESENT BY SPP, H.C., KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580 011. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.5) REGISTERED IN C.C. NO.1257/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC-II COURT, BELAGAVI, FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 417 R/W 37 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11838 CRL.P No. 100395 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused No.5 is before this Court under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1257/2022 pending before the Court of JMFC-II, Belagavi, arising out of Crime No.43/2021 registered by Malamaruthi Police Station, Belagavi city for offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 465, 120B read with Sections 34 and 37 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner only for the offences punished under Sections 417, 120B read with 37 of IPC. Except the confession statement of the co- accused, there is no other material collected against the petitioner. During the course of investigation, there is no recovery of any article in the present case from the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11838 CRL.P No. 100395 of 2025 possession of the petitioner. He accordingly prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP has strongly opposed the petition. She submits that petitioner has conspired and assisted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of committing the charge sheeted offences. Accused No.1 had impersonated accused No.2 in the written examination that was held to the post of Special Constable K.S.R.P. for men and women. 5. The allegations against the petitioner is that he was contacting candidates who were aspiring to become constables and after collecting money from them, he was arranging candidates to impersonate the actual candidates who were supposed to appear for the written examination. In the present case, petitioner had contacted accused No.1 and had offered him money and induced him to impersonate accused No.2 in the written examination that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11838 CRL.P No. 100395 of 2025 was held on 07.05.2020 for the post of Special Constable K.S.R.P. 6. CW25 who was one of the candidate has stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that petitioner had contacted him and asked him to arrange for money for the purpose of arranging candidate to impersonate him in the written examination. He has also stated that subsequently petitioner had informed him that one of his candidates was caught while impersonating the actual candidate. During the course of investigation, police have recorded confession statement of the petitioner and the same corroborates with the other materials collected by the prosecution in the present case during the course of investigation. 7. 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. In the present case, petitioner had contacted accused No.1 and had offered him money and induced him to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11838 CRL.P No. 100395 of 2025 impersonate accused No.2 in the competitive written examination that was held to the responsible post of Special Constable, K.S.R.P. 8. The material on record would go to show that petitioner had contacted similar other candidates and had demanded money from them for the purpose of arranging other candidates to impersonate them in the written examination. Petitioner therefore was all along aware that his act would place another meritorious candidate in an unfair situation and therefore the offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 of Cr.P.C., which is punishable under Section 417 of Cr.P.C., clearly gets attracted against the petitioner. 9. 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 1 (2024) 10 SCC 690 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11838 CRL.P No. 100395 of 2025 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 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)” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11838 CRL.P No. 100395 of 2025 10. 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.” 11. 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 2 (2016) 7 SCC 615 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11838 CRL.P No. 100395 of 2025 position and as a result, meritorious candidates may lose a chance of being selected. 12. 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 KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 118