Karnataka High Court
Umesh Ganiger vs State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:20209
CRL.P No. 2261 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2261 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
UMESH GANIGER
S/O ASHOK
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/AT C/O MAHALINGACHAR UTHSVAMBHA TEMPLE
TARASU STREET, CHITRADURGA
KARNATAKA - 577 501.
(AS PER AADHAR)
UMESH GANIGAR
S/O ASHOKA GANIGAR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
Digitally signed R/AT HOOLI VILLAGE
by
SANJEEVINI J SAVADATTI TALUK
KARISHETTY
BELAGAVI DISTRICT
Location: High
Court of KARNATAKA - 591 129.
Karnataka
(AS PER FIR)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI HEMANTHA B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:20209
CRL.P No. 2261 of 2026
HC-KAR
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. M.VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
CHC - 1069, SPECIAL BRANCH
DPO, CHITRADURGA TOWN
KARNATAKA - 577 501.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR IN CR.NO.234/2023 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1
CHITRADURGA TOWN P.S CHITRADURGA FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 464, 465, 468, 471, 420 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE
OF HON'BLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.234 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 464, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the IPC.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:20209 CRL.P No. 2261 of 2026 HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri Hemantha B, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri B N Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3. It is the case of the 2nd respondent-complainant that he is working in the Special Branch of the Police Department and he was entrusted with the verification of the genuinity of the police verification certificate of the job aspirants. The verification was done by the 2nd respondent-complainant and it was reported that petitioner did not reside in the said address and the document produced was not genuine. Therefore rejects the police verification report PVR No.2618 of 2020. Based upon the said complaint, a crime in Crime No.234 of 2023 comes to be registered. Registration of the crime has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that even if the assertions in the complaint are taken as true, it does not make out an offence, as the petitioner is not the Authority to verify the credentials in a police verification report. The police verification was done in the year 2020. It was sent -4- NC: 2026:KHC:20209 CRL.P No. 2261 of 2026 HC-KAR to the concerned Authority through the proper channel of the police department. The police verification document produced by the petitioner to the employer i.e., the Indian Army cannot be a forged document. He would submit that despite passage of 3 years, no charge sheet is filed by the investigating agency. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.
5. Per-contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri B. N. Jagadeesha would submit that the police verification of the petitioner is done, but the report varies. The police verification that is submitted to the Army was not at all done by the jurisdictional police. He would submit that the charge sheet is yet to be filed and would be filed if reasonable time is granted.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:20209 CRL.P No. 2261 of 2026 HC-KAR
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. What drives the petitioner to this Court is the complaint registered by the 2nd respondent. The complaint reads as follows:
"ಇಂದ:-ಎಂ. ಜಯಕು ಾ , ೆ -1068.
ಾ ೇಷ ಾ ೆ, ಒ, ತ ದುಗ!.
"#ಾಂಕ:07.05.2022.
ರವ&'ೆ,
(ಾ)ಾ*+ಾ&ಗಳ-,
ತ ದುಗ! +ೋ/ೆ 01ೕ2 (ಾ)ೆ,
ತ ದುಗ!.
ಾನ45ೇ,
ಷಯ :- ಉ7ೕಶ 'ಾ9ಗ ತಂ:ೆ ಅ ೆ<ೕ=, >ಾರ?ೕಯ @ೇ#ೆ'ೆ
ಆBCDಾದ ಅಭ4F!ಯ 7ೕ ೆ ನಕ1 01ೕ2 ಪ ಾಣ ಪತ
ಸೃKL , ಅದನುM ಬಳ +ೊಂ ರುವOದ&ಂದ ಸೂಕP +ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ +ೈ'ೊಳSಲು +ೋ& Uೕ ದ ದೂರು.
*** ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮW1 ನಂ? +ೊಳ-SವO:ೇ#ೆಂದ5ೆ, #ಾನು ಾ 01ೕ2 ಕXೇ&ಯ ೇಷ >ಾಗದ1 7ೕ ಾ*+ಾ&ಗಳ ಸೂಚ#ೆಯಂZೆ [ಾ\]ೆ& +ೇಷ^, 01ೕ2 ಪ&_ೕಲ#ಾ ಪ ಾಣ ಪತ ಗ`'ೆ ಸಂಬA" ದಂZೆ ಬರುವ ಅ ! ಾಗೂ 01ೕ2 ಪ&_ೕಲ#ಾ ಪ ಾಣ ಪತ ಗಳನುM ತ&ಸುವ ಕತ!ವ4 ಾ +ೊಂ ರುZೆPೕ#ೆ.
01ೕ2 U&ೕaಕರು, ತ ದುಗ! +ೋ/ೆ 01ೕ2 (ಾ)ೆ ರವ&'ೆ ಾನ4 01ೕ2
ಅ*ೕaಕರು, ತ ದುಗ! ೆ ಇವ&'ೆ >ಾರ?ೕಯ @ೇ#ೆ'ೆ ಆBCDಾದ ಅಭ4F! ಉ7ೕಶ
'ಾ9ಗ ತಂ:ೆ ಅ ೆ<ೕ=, ]ಾಡ! ನಂ-18, ಉತc]ಾಂಭ :ೇವ@ಾdನದ ಹ?Pರ, ತ ದುಗ!
ಇವರ ಗುಣ ನಡZೆ ಪfವ! gಾ&h ಯದ ಬ'ೆi ಮರುಪ&_ೕ1 ವರ"ಯನುM ಸ1ಸಲು
ಸೂ ರುZಾP5ೆ.
ಅದರಂZೆ 01ೕ2 U&ೕaಕರು, ತ ದುಗ! +ೋ/ೆ 01ೕ2 (ಾ)ೆ ರವರ ಪತ
ಸಂ ೆ4 ಸಂ ೆ4:+ೋ/ೆ/ ಎ2/ /83/2022 "#ಾಂಕ:08.04.2022 ಅನುM ಾನ4
01ೕ2 ಅ*ೕaಕ&'ೆ ಪತ ಬ5ೆ"ದುj ಅದರ1 ಅಭ4F! ಉ7ೕಶ 'ಾ9ಗ 'ೆ ಸಂಬಂ" ದ -6- NC: 2026:KHC:20209 CRL.P No. 2261 of 2026 HC-KAR Police Verification Report PVR NO/2618/2020 ಅನುM ಲಗ?P ದುj ಇದರ #ೈಜZೆಯ ಬ'ೆi ಪ&_ೕಲ#ೆ'ೆ +ೋ&ರುZಾP5ೆ ಈ ಪತ ಾಗೂ 01ೕ2 ಪ ಾಣ ಪತ ದ [ೆ5ಾ=c ಪ ? ನನM ಬ` ಬಂ"ದುj ಸದ& Police Verification Report PVR NO/2618/2020 ಅನುM ಪ&_ೕಲ#ೆ ಾ :ಾಗ +ೆಳkನ ಅಂಶಗಳ- ಕಂಡುಬಂ"ರುತP]ೆ.
1. ತ ದುಗ! ೆಯ1 OVR (Other Verification Report) _ೕK!+ೆಯ ಅ ಯ1 01ೕ2 ಪ ಾಣ ಪತ ಗಳನುM Uೕಡ ಾಗು?Pದುj PVR _ೕK!+ೆಯ ಅ ಯ1 01ೕ2 ಪ ಾಣ ಪತ ಗಳನುM Uೕ ರುವO"ಲ,
2. ಸದ& ಅಭ4F!ಯ Police Verification Report PVR NO/2618/2020 ರ ಸl! +ೇmನ [ೆ5ಾ=c ಪ ?ಯನುM ಪ&_ೕ1 :ಾಗ, Chitradurga PS ಎಂದು ಇದುj ೆಯ1 ತ ದುಗ! 01ೕ2 @ೆLೕಷ^ ಇರುವO"ಲ.
3. VR Type ನ1 PVC for Class-IV ಎಂತ ನಮೂದು ಇದುj ನಮW1 ಬಳಸುವO"ಲ.
4. ಸದ& ಅಭ4F!ಯ Police Verification Report PVR NO/2618/2020 ರ ಸl!n+ೇಟM [ೆ5ಾ=c ಪ ?ಯನುM ಪ&_ೕ1 :ಾಗ, 0ೕ/ೋದ1 ನಮೂ"ರುವ ೕp ಾ 01ೕ2 ಕXೇ&ಯ1 ಬಳ+ೆಯ1ರುವO"ಲ,
5. ಸದ& ಸl! +ೇmನ1ರುವ "ಆರa+ಾ*ೕaಕರು, ತ ದುಗ!" & Suptd of Police, Chitradurga" ಈ ಾದ&ಯ ೕpಗಳನುM ಾ 01ೕ2 ಕXೇ&ಯ1 ಬಳ+ೆಯ1ರುವO"ಲ.
6. Police Verification Report PVR NO/2618/2020 ಅ#ೊMೕ ಾ 01ೕ2 ಕgೇ& ತ ದುಗ!"ಂದ ತ& ರುವO"ಲ.
7ೕಲCಂಡ +ಾರಣ"ಂದ ಉ7ೕq 'ಾ9'ೇ ಇವರ Police Verification Report PVR NO/2618/2020 #ೈಜZೆrಂದ ಕೂ ಲ]ಾದj&ಂದ ಮತುP ನಕ1 ಎಂದು ಧೃಡಪlLರುವOದ&ಂದ ಉ7ೕq 'ಾ9'ೇ ತಂ:ೆ ಅ ೆ<ೕ= ಇವರ ರುದt ಸ+ಾ!ರದ ಪರ]ಾk ಸೂಕP +ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ +ೈ'ೊಳSuೇ+ಾk +ೋರುZೆPೕ#ೆ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07.05.2022.
ಸv/-
(ಎಂ. ಜಯಕು ಾ ) ¹ºÉZï¹-1068 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:20209 CRL.P No. 2261 of 2026 HC-KAR f¯Áè «±ÉõÀ ±ÁSÉ r¦M, avÀæzÀÄUÀð."
The complaint alleges that the petitioner has produced a forged police verification certificate while securing a job in the Army. The complaint would falter under the weight of the procedure for police verification. There can be no hand of the petitioner in police verification. It is received by the police, informed by the police and communicated back to the sender by the police. Wherefrom did the petitioner come into the picture is ununderstandable. If the channel through which the police verification report would go is separate and does not involve the petitioner, no crime can be made out against him qua the facts obtaining in the complaint. The petitioner submits that due to registration of the complaint his employment itself is put to jeopardy. In that light, permitting further proceedings against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
8. In this regard, it would be apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF -8- NC: 2026:KHC:20209 CRL.P No. 2261 of 2026 HC-KAR HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL1 wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.1
1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335 -9- NC: 2026:KHC:20209 CRL.P No. 2261 of 2026 HC-KAR (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:20209 CRL.P No. 2261 of 2026 HC-KAR
9. In view of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the judgment of the Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings as against the petitioner.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The FIR in Crime No.234 of 2023 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Chitradurga, stands quashed qua the petitioner.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28 CT:SS