Karnataka High Court
Raju S/O Mohiddinsab Kuntoji vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 October, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRL.P No.103733/2023
BETWEEN
1. RAJU
S/O MOHIDDINSAB KUNTOJI
RAJAHAMADA MODINASAB KUNTOJI
AGE : 59 YEARS
OCC: TEACHER
R/O PLOT NO.288, NAVANAGAR
SECTOR NO.28, BAGALKOT
2. HAJIMALANGA VAJIRASAB YADAHALLI
AGE : 55 YEARS
OCC:TEACHER
R/O PLOT NO.175A, NAVANAGAR
SECTOR NO.02, BAGALKOT
3. RAMESH SIDDALINGAPPA MANAHALLI
AGE : 40 YEARS
OCC: TEACHER
R/O PLOT NO.97, NAVANAGAR
SECTOR NO.63, BAGALKOT
4. MAIBUB ABDULAJIZ YENDIGERI
AGE : 45 YEARS
OCC: TEACHER
R/O PLOT NO.67B, NAVANAGAR
SECTOR NO.09, BAGALKOT
2
5. MOULASAB DAVALASAB HIREHAL
AGE : 40 YEARS
OCC: TEACHER
R/O PLOT NO.C9, NAVANAGAR
SECTOR NO.20, BAGALKOT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD
(CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
NAVANAGARA, BAGALKOT
2. DODDABASAPPA
S/O BHIMAPPA NEERALKERI
AGE : 58 YEARS
OCC: BLOCK EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
BAGALKOT TQ, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.0067/2019 BEFORE THE
CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT AND
CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO.121/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BAGALKOTE,
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 143, 147, 175, 176, 420, 149 OF IPC, R/W
3
SECTION 118 AND 120 OF THE EDUCATION ACT AGAINST
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 6 TO 9.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDER, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
The present petition is filed under Section 482 by
accused Nos.1, 6 to 9 with the following prayer:
"WHEREFORE, the Petitioners most humbly
prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be
pleased to quash the entire proceedings registered
in Crime No.0067/2019 before the Circle Police
Inspector, Navanagar, Bagalkote and charge sheet
in CC No.121/2023 on the file of the Principal
Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkote, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 175, 176, 420, 149 IPC Read with Section
118 and 120 of the Education Act against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 6 to 9, in the
interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case which are utmost
necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:
4
Block Education Officer, Bagalkot filed a
complaint against the petitioners and others, who are
working in Anjuman High School, Navanagar, Bagalkot
alleging the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 175, 176, 420 Read with Section
149 of IPC and Sections 118 and 120 of the Education
Act at an examination centre in the said High School
in order to help the students and to cheat the
Government.
3. On receipt of the complaint, Navanagar
Police registered a case in crime No.67/2019 for the
aforesaid offences and investigated the matter.
4. During the course of investigation, accused
persons including petitioners were apprehended and
their statements were recorded. Likewise, the
investigating agency visited the place of incident and
drew spot mahazar. Investigation agency further
5
collected the sample of handwriting of the students
who had attended the examination. A mahazar was
drawn with regard to the handwriting of the students
who had written the examination and original answer
scripts were also seized. Investigation agency also
collected the sample of handwriting of the accused
persons as well as the suspected employees of the
school under the mahazar.
5. Apart from the above, investigation agency
recorded the statements of more than 70 persons with
regard to the alleged incident. Deputy Director,
Public Education Department and Officers of
Karnataka Higher Education Board were enquired and
discrepancies found in the answer scripts pertaining to
the education centre of Anjuman High School were
noted in the form of reports.
6
6. Few other material documents depicting
the persons who are placed on duty for the successful
conduct of the examination and to keep vigil over the
examination centres were also collected. Diaries
maintained by the invigilators of the examination hall,
number of employees of Anjuman High School, police
notices were collected at the time of investigation.
7. Investigation agency also recorded the
explanation offered by the petitioners who are
accused Nos.1 and 6 and those statements were
produced before the Court along with the charge
sheet.
8. Learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the
offences alleged against the accused persons.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused
Nos.1 and 6 to 9 are before this Court challenging the
filing of charge sheet on following grounds:
7
That the initiation of criminal case against the
petitioners is illegal and made on baseless
allegations, resulted in the abuse of process of law.
That there are no specific allegations against these
petitioners stating that they have been involved in
the commission of offense nor there are any eye
witnesses to that effect. The entire allegations are
based on surmises and conjectures and hence
vitiated.
The main allegation against these Petitioners is that
some of them have not been entrusted with
examination work, still then they were asked to work
in the examination centre. There is no legal evidence
available on record to show that some of the
Accused have actually worked in the examination.
Apart from that it is further alleged that when the
answer scripts were opened at the evaluation centre,
namely, at Hosapete, the evaluator found that some
of the answer scripts of particular students were
tampered, in that the hand writing of the students on
the main answer sheet does not tally with that of the
supplementary sheet and therefore the Petitioners
are required to be proceeded with. Nothing is
investigated nor found out that at what stage this
mal-practice had occurred. In view of the categorical
statements of all the custodian of the examination
hall to the effect that nothing has happened in their
hall of the examination. Thus the investigation has
failed to locate the place where exactly the alleged
offense has taken place, nor the Petitioners are
involved in such an offense.
That none of the ingredients for which the charge
sheet is filed are satisfied and attracted and hence
the entire proceedings are vitiated.
That unless and until there is direct evidence of
involvement of these persons the trial would be a
mockery of justice resulting into futile exercise,
8
causing harassment of facing the trial when there
are bleak chances of success of their conviction.
Any other ground or grounds will be urged at the
time of hearing with due notice to other side and
with due permission of this Hon'ble Court.
10. Sri.S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for the
petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the
petition vehemently contended that petitioners are
innocent persons and absolutely they had no role at
all in the alleged offences.
11. He further contended that materials
collected by the investigation agency which is part of
the charge sheet, prima facie do not indicate the
commission of any of the aforesaid offences insofar as
the petitioners are concerned. Thus, continuation of
the pending criminal case against the petitioners
would result in unnecessary hardship so far as the
petitioners are concerned and sought for allowing the
petition.
9
12. It is also contended on behalf of the
petitioners that in the absence of any direct evidence
establishing the involvement of the petitioners in the
alleged offences, accused persons to face the trial
would result in mockery of justice besides being great
hardship to the petitioners.
13. It is also the contention of Sri.S.B.Hebballi,
that allowing the trial to continue against the
petitioners is nothing but a futile exercise resulting in
harassment to the petitioners in facing an unwanted
trial by the petitioners and sought for allowing the
petition.
14. Per contra, Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned
High Court Government Pleader opposes the grounds
of the petition and sought for dismissal of the petition.
15. She further contended that materials
collected by the investigation agency inasmuch as the
10
handwriting found in the answer scripts in the main
sheet and the supplementary sheets with the sample
handwriting of the students, on prima facie
comparison would reveal that the handwriting in
answer script and supplementary answer script and
sample handwriting do not tally each other. Same is
visible to the naked eye. Who is responsible for the
sad discrepancy has been investigated by the
investigation agency in detail and materials collected
were confronted to the witnesses and their statements
were recorded by the investigation agency.
16. She invited the attention of statements of
Reeyana Sultan, Akeeb Mulla, son of Dongrisab,
Abubakar Daptaraband S/o Modinasab, Abdulhajeej
Shekah son of Vajeerahamad, Ateeyakousar Moregar
daughter of Abdulakarim, Anjum Dalayat daughter of
Shehanasha, Harshavulla Sharabatawala son of
Suleman and other charge sheet witnesses have
11
clearly spelt out the role played by the accused
persons in the alleged crime. Therefore, prima facie
materials collected by the investigation agency would
sufficiently indicate the involvement of the persons in
the crime and therefore, trial is necessary.
17. She also contended that this Court, at the
stage of considering the request for quashing the
charge sheet, this Court cannot hold a mini trial and
prima facie materials if available on record, such
charge sheet cannot be quashed by exercising the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and sought for
dismissal of the petition.
18. Having heard the arguments of parties in
detail, this Court has given its anxious consideration
to the material on record.
19. On such meticulous perusal of the material
on record, it would go to show that there are different
12
handwritings in the main answer script and
supplementary answer script of the students who have
written the examination in Anjuman High School,
Navanagar, Bagalkot. There was a credible
information as to the malpractice in the centre
whereby the complainant was compelled to file the
complaint with the Navanagar Police.
20. After registering the case based on the
complaint filed by complainant, in crime No.67/2019,
the Investigation Agency conducted a detailed
investigation.
21. As rightly contended by learned High Court
Government Pleader, while considering the request of
quashing the pending charge sheet by the petitioners,
this Court is required to consider the prima facie
material which would establish the nexus between the
accused persons and the alleged crime.
13
22. Holding a mini trial to ascertain the
contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners is
deprecated in Catena of Judicial Pronouncements.
23. Thus, desisting from holding a mini trial,
when the material on record is analysed, the seized
original answer scripts in comparison with the
specimen handwriting of the students who have
participated in the examination, would go to show that
there is variance in the handwritings. Prima facie
material thus, is visible to the naked eye that there is
variance in the handwriting. Who is responsible, what
is the role of each of the accused persons in the said
variance, is a matter of trial.
24. According to the statements of the charge
sheet witnesses, it is accused No.1 who was the Head
Master of the Kannada Middle School, run by Anjuman
institution. He had also been appointed as Chief
14
Superintendent for the smooth conduct of the
examination. He had in turn appointed accused Nos.7
to 9 as the relieving invigilators. One of the
prosecution witness namely Reeyana Sultan has
stated before the police while she was examined
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that O.A. bundle of
examination centre - 103, had 11 packages and when
the same was opened for the purpose of valuation, in
those bundles, in respect of 48 answer scripts, on the
facing sheet, the signature of the invigilator in respect
of main answer script and supplementary answer
script were found different.
25. Likewise, the handwriting found in the main
answer script and supplementary answer script were
also different. She also noticed that even though
there were many blank sheets in the main answer
scripts, supplementary answer scripts were tied to the
main answer scripts.
15
26. In the teeth of such discrepancies, whether
the Chief Superintendent is responsible for the alleged
discrepancies in the answer scripts with the active
collusions of other accused persons, cannot be
decided only on the say of the present petitioners that
they are innocent of the offences alleged against
them.
27. In other words, trial is necessary in
establishing that the petitioners are responsible for
the aforesaid offences. Prima facie materials in the
form of sample handwriting, the discrepancy in the
main answer script and supplementary answer script
and similar statements of other charge sheet
witnesses, would establish a nexus between the role
assigned to the petitioners and the alleged offences.
So as to require the petitioners to stand for trial.
16
28. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the grounds urged in the petition are
hardly sufficient to quash the pending charge sheet
against the petitioners.
29. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. Petition is dismissed. ii. However, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court, in this order, is only for the purpose of disposal of the present case on merits and it shall not affect the rights of the petitioners in any manner to be canvassed before the Trial Court.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV