- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3438 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NIRMALA W/O. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, PRESIDENT, SRI ANJENEYA HIGH SCHOOL, YERAGUNTE (A-2), DAVANAGERE - 577 007. 2. G. T. THIMMAPPA S/O. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SECRETARY, SRI ANJENAYA HIGH SCHOOL, YARAGUNTE (A-3), DAVANAGERE - 577 007. 3. GURUMURTHY S/O. KALMATHADA, GURUVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, DIRECTOR, SRI ANJENAYA HIGH SCHOOL, R/O. ANAJI GOLLARAHALLY VILLAGE (A-4), DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 007. 4. GOPALA S/O OF MEKE VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT, DIRECTOR OF ANJENAYA HIGH SCHOOL, YERAGUNTE - 577 007. (A-6) 5. SMT. VENKATAMMA Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017 W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT, (A-8), DIRECTOR OF ANJENAYA HIGH SCHOOL, YERAGUNTE - 577 007. 6. SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT, DIRECTOR OF ANJENAYA HIGH SCHOOL, YERAGUNTE-577 007. (A-9) 7. SMT. VENKATAMMA D/O. THIMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT, DIRECTOR OF ANJENAYA HIGH SCHOOL, YERAGUNTE-577 007 (A-10) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA A., ADVOCATE V/O DT.16/12/24, P1 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED) AND: 1. B. R. BASAVARAJAPPA BLOCK EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NORTH ZONE, NEAR TIME TOWER, DAVANAGERE - 570 002. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE CITY, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (R1 - SD/- SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1249/2016 ON THE FILE OF JMFC- III COURT, DAVANAGERE IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERN. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioners being accused Nos.2 to 4, 6, 8 to 10 in Cr.No.5/2015 of Gandhi Nagar police station, pending in CC No.1249/2016 on the file of the learned JMFC III Court, Davanagere registered for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 471, 420 R/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Sri.Hanumanthappa A, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sowmya R, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 remained absent despite service of notice. Hence, his argument is taken as nil. Perused the materials on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent No.1 being the Block Educational Officer has filed the first information with Gandhi Nagar police station, Davanagere against accused Nos.1 to 10 alleging that he was directed by the Commissioner of Education to lodge the complaint as it was found that these accused, who are running Educational Institution, have tampered with public document, attendance register only to help one Jeenath Unnissa to get the grant in aid from the department of Education. Even though she was appointed on 02.02.2000, whereas, the documents were concocted to show that she was appointed on 02.06.1999. There was an attempt made by the accused by concoction of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017 the document to make wrongful gain for Jeenath Unnissa, even though she is not entitled for the same and thereby committed cheating. The investigation was undertaken and the final report came to be filed against accused Nos. 1 to 10. 5. The only ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, Section 420 of IPC cannot be invoked to the facts in the present case. He places reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another1 wherein, the Court has held at paragraph 12 as under: "12. The ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows: (1) Deception of a person by making false representation which the maker knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby 2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person: (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or 1 2025 INSC 1096 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017 is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property." 6. Placing reliance on the decision, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is none of the ingredients to attract Section 420 of IPC is made out in the present case. 7. Section 420 of IPC reads as under: "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine." 8. Reading of the Section makes it clear that, if there was dishonest intention of cheating deceive the other person to make the whole or any part of valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security is punishable under this provision of law. 9. In the present case, the allegation is that the petitioners, who are running Educational Institution, tampered the public document to cheat the department by projecting that she was appointed on 02.06.1999, where in-fact she was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017 appointed on 02.02.2000. If the said tampered document is to be accepted by the Educational Department, Jeenath Unnissa would definitely benefited illegally and dishonestly, as she was not entitled for such benefit. Under such circumstances, at this stage, it cannot be concluded by saying that Section 420 of IPC is not attracted. 10. The prosecution has cited as many as 12 witnesses and produced several documents to substantiate its contention. When there are strong prima-facie materials to constitute the offences against the petitioners, they are not entitled for any relief. 11. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7