- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14471 WP No. 16022 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16022 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: RAMESHA S/O THIMMEGOWDA, AGE: 56 YEARS, R/O BHARATHAVALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573213. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KESHAVA CHANDRA S.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR ALUR POLICE STATION, ALUR, SAKALESHPURA-SUB-DIVISION, ALUR, ALUR TALUK, SAKALESHPURA DISTRICT-573213 3. RAMESH BASAVEGOWDA, AGE: 58 YEARS, R/O KADALU VILLAGE, KUNDURU HOBLI, ALURU TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14471 WP No. 16022 of 2019 SMT. NITHYA V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 23.08.2018 REGISTERED IN CR NO.355/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE [JR.DIVISION] AND JMFC, ALUR MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F AND THE COMPLAINT DATED 07.09.2013 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE [JR. DIVISION] AND JMFC, ALUR, BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 in P.C.R No.220/2013 and the consequent F.I.R drawn by the respondent No.2 in Crime No.355/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 463 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14471 WP No. 16022 of 2019 2. The respondent No.3 filed a private complaint in P.C.R No.220/2013 alleging that he was working as a daily wager in the Department of Horticulture from the year 1972 to 1983. In the year 1982, the Department of Horticulture terminated his services and informed him that whenever there was work, he would be informed. He claimed that he was under the bona fide impression that he would receive a letter from the Department of Horticulture. He claimed that a letter addressed thereafter by the Department of Horticulture was misused by the accused/petitioner herein and he impersonated the respondent No.3 and reported to work as per the order dated 23.11.1995. The respondent No.3 also alleged that the accused/petitioner had tampered the attendance register and inserted his name therein. The respondent No.3, therefore, prayed that suitable action be initiated against the petitioner by taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 463 and 465 of IPC. The Trial Court referred the private complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). Following this, the respondent No.2 registered Crime No.355/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14471 WP No. 16022 of 2019 420, 463 and 465 of IPC. The petitioner being aggrieved by the action initiated against him by the respondent No.2, has filed this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had reported to work pursuant to a letter issued by the Department of Agriculture dated 23.11.1995. He submits that the respondent No.3, who was aware of this fact, did not take any steps from the year 1995 till the year 2013. He, therefore, submits that the private complaint lodged by the respondent No.3 was highly belated and the Trial Court could not have referred the same for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. He also contends that the Trial Court did not apply its mind before referring the case for investigation by the Police. He also contends that the name of the father of the petitioner is Mr.Thimmegowda while the name of the father of the respondent No. 3 is Mr.Basavegowda. He also contends that the petitioner was working as a group 'D' employee in the Department of Horticulture since the year 1981 and his services were regularised along with other persons in the year 1996. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14471 WP No. 16022 of 2019 Therefore, he contends that there is no question of the petitioner impersonating the respondent No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner taking advantage of the similarity of names, has misused a letter addressed by the Horticulture Department to the respondent No.3 and has reported to work by impersonating the respondent No.3. Therefore, she contends that the respondent No.2 was justified in registering an F.I.R against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 463 and 465 of IPC. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the respondent No.2 has only registered an F.I.R against the petitioner as the case disclosed commission of cognizable offences. He submits that if the petitioner is innocent of the allegations, the Police would close the case. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14471 WP No. 16022 of 2019 Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 7. A perusal of the private complaint lodged by the respondent No.3 would go to show that the respondent No.3 was terminated from service in the year 1982 and that he was informed by the Department of Horticulture to report back to work whenever he receives an intimation from the Department. The petitioner had reported to work pursuant to a letter issued by the Department of Horticulture on 23.11.1995. The respondent No.3 has not taken any action from the year 1995 till the year 2013 and after a lapse of nearly 17 years, has filed the private complaint alleging that the petitioner had impersonated him. The Trial Court, therefore, must have applied its mind before referring the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C as the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C, did not allow cognizance of such a belated Complaint. 8. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The First Information Report (FIR) drawn against the petitioner by the respondent No.2 in Crime No.355/2018 for the offences - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14471 WP No. 16022 of 2019 punishable under Sections 419, 420, 463 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Alur, is quashed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49