Karnataka High Court
Kumari Minakshi vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6270
CRL.P No. 201344 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201344 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
KUMARI MINAKSHI
D/O LATE LAXMAN TALAMADAGI,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O CHANDAPUR, TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585302.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: HIGH THROUGH CHINCHOLI POLICE STATION,
COURT OF REPT. BY ADDL. S.P.P.
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DIST.KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SMT. LALITABAI WHC 448,
DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL RIGHT ENFORCEMENT,
KALABURAGI, DIST.KALABURAGI-585101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI GOUTHAM DEV ULLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6270
CRL.P No. 201344 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND FURTHER QUASH THE
FIR AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.63/2022, BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 CHINCHOLI POLICE STATED, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
KALABURAGI, BASED ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE COMMISSION OF ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 196, 198, 420, 109
OF IPC AND 3(1)(Q) OF SC/ST(POA) ACT 1989, AND 5(A), 5(B)
OF SC/ST AND OBC(RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENTS, ETC.,)
ACT 1990, IN SO FOR AS IT RELATES TO PETITIONER
ACCUSED NO.1
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.63/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 196, 198, 420, 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(1)(q) of Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 5(A), 5(b) of the Karnataka SC/ST and Other BC (Reservation of Appointments, ETC) Act, 1990.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under: -3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6270 CRL.P No. 201344 of 2025 HC-KAR One Lalitabai, Woman Head Constable attached to the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE) Cell, Kalaburagi, set the criminal law in motion by lodging a complaint alleging that the petitioner had obtained a caste certificate claiming to belong to the 'Gond' community, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. The informant alleged that the petitioner's claim appeared doubtful, and accordingly, an enquiry was initiated. The petitioner's caste certificate was thereafter placed before the District Caste Verification Committee, Kalaburagi for verification. Pursuant to the said complaint, criminal proceedings came to be initiated, culminating in registration of a crime, and the petitioner is now facing prosecution for the aforesaid offences.
3. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the said proceedings, primarily on the ground that the registration of the crime is illegal and unsustainable for want of prior sanction as required under Section 6 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6270 CRL.P No. 201344 of 2025 HC-KAR Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has placed reliance on two Coordinate Bench decisions wherein identical questions have been considered and decided. Drawing attention to those rulings, he submits that the District Caste Verification Committee's order, which had invalidated the petitioner's caste certificate, was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.200867/2024, wherein this Court set aside both the order of the District Committee and the Appellate Authority. Consequently, the matter now stands remitted for fresh consideration, and there is no final adjudication as to the validity of the petitioner's caste certificate. Hence, continuation of the criminal proceedings, pending such determination, amounts to abuse of process of law, and therefore, interference is warranted.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6270 CRL.P No. 201344 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submit that liberty may be reserved to the authorities to proceed against the petitioner depending upon the final outcome of the proceedings pending before the District Caste Verification Committee, Kalaburagi.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides and upon perusal of the record, the short question that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are liable to be quashed by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in the light of the Coordinate Bench decisions rendered on identical facts?"
My answer to the above point is in the affirmative, for the following reasons:
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6270 CRL.P No. 201344 of 2025 HC-KAR REASONS
7. In the present case, a crime has been registered against the petitioner alleging that, while applying for public employment, she had produced a fabricated caste certificate claiming that she belonged to a Scheduled Tribe community, despite allegedly not being a member of such community. The accusation, therefore, centers around the alleged forgery and misuse of a caste certificate purportedly to obtain employment benefits reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidates.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's caste status was referred for verification to the District Caste Verification Committee, Kalaburagi, and that the said proceedings are still pending adjudication. Thus, the validity or otherwise of the petitioner's caste certificate has not yet been finally determined by the competent authority. Despite the pendency of such verification, the respondent authorities proceeded to register a criminal -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6270 CRL.P No. 201344 of 2025 HC-KAR case against the petitioner based on the complaint lodged by the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of the Coordinate Bench rendered in identical factual circumstances, wherein it has been consistently held that initiation of criminal prosecution for offences under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990 without obtaining the prior sanction mandated under Section 6 of the said Act is illegal and unsustainable in law.
10. Section 6 of the aforesaid Act clearly provides that:
"No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of the State Government." -8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6270 CRL.P No. 201344 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. This statutory safeguard is couched in mandatory terms. The requirement of sanction acts as a jurisdictional precondition and is intended to prevent frivolous or premature prosecution, especially when the validity of the caste claim is yet to be adjudicated by the competent verification authority. Hence, in the absence of such sanction, registration of the FIR and continuation of criminal proceedings are contrary to the express provisions of law.
12. In the case at hand, the complaint lodged by the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell was entertained and acted upon without the prior sanction of the State Government as contemplated under Section 6. Consequently, the very initiation of the criminal proceedings stands vitiated, as it suffers from a jurisdictional infirmity. Moreover, since the order of the District Caste Verification Committee invalidating the petitioner's caste certificate has already been set aside by this Court in W.P. No.200867/2024 and the matter has -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6270 CRL.P No. 201344 of 2025 HC-KAR been remitted for fresh enquiry, the issue concerning the genuineness of the caste certificate remains open. Thus, permitting the prosecution to proceed in such circumstances would be premature and would amount to abuse of the process of law.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, in the absence of statutory sanction and during the pendency of verification proceedings, is unsustainable in law and warrants interference in exercise of this Court's inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
ORDER I. The petition is allowed.
II. The criminal proceedings pending in Crime No.63/2022, registered for the offences
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6270 CRL.P No. 201344 of 2025 HC-KAR punishable under Sections 196, 198, 420 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Sections 5(A) and 5(B) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Act, 1990, are hereby quashed. III. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent authorities to initiate appropriate criminal action against the petitioner after obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 6 of the Karnataka Act, and such action shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending before the District Caste Verification Committee, Kalaburagi.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45 CT:SI