Dismissed

Raju S/O Mohiddinsab Kuntoji v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Oct 2024CRL.P/103733/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners appealed to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging a charge sheet filed for alleged examination malpractice. The High Court held that prima facie evidence of handwriting discrepancies and role assignments established a nexus requiring trial, dismissing the petition without holding a mini-trial.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash the proceedings and charge sheet was dismissed.

Raju S/O Mohiddinsab Kuntoji Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶6

CRL.P No.103733/2023

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

1 . RAJU S/O MOHIDDINSAB KUNTOJI RAJAHAMADA MODINASAB KUNTOJI AGE : 59 YEARS OCC: TEACHER R/O PLOT NO.288, NAVANAGAR SECTOR NO.28, BAGALKOT

¶9

HAJIMALANGA VAJIRASAB YADAHALLI AGE : 55 YEARS OCC:TEACHER R/O PLOT NO.175A, NAVANAGAR SECTOR NO.02, BAGALKOT

¶10

RAMESH SIDDALINGAPPA MANAHALLI AGE : 40 YEARS OCC: TEACHER R/O PLOT NO.97, NAVANAGAR SECTOR NO.63, BAGALKOT

¶11

MAIBUB ABDULAJIZ YENDIGERI AGE : 45 YEARS OCC: TEACHER R/O PLOT NO.67B, NAVANAGAR SECTOR NO.09, BAGALKOT

¶12

¶13

MOULASAB DAVALASAB HIREHAL AGE : 40 YEARS OCC: TEACHER R/O PLOT NO.C9, NAVANAGAR SECTOR NO.20, BAGALKOT

¶14

...PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND

¶16

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD (CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, NAVANAGARA, BAGALKOT

¶17

DODDABASAPPA S/O BHIMAPPA NEERALKERI AGE : 58 YEARS OCC: BLOCK EDUCATIONAL OFFICER BAGALKOT TQ, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 101.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶19

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

¶20

¶21

SECTION 118 AND 120 OF THE EDUCATION ACT AGAINST PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 6 TO 9.

¶22

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDER, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶24

CAV ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

¶26

The present petition is filed under Section 482 by

¶27

accused Nos.1, 6 to 9 with the following prayer:

¶28

“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.”

¶29

Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:

¶30

¶31

Block Education Officer, Bagalkot filed a

¶32

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.

¶33

On receipt of the complaint, Navanagar Police registered a case in crime No.67/2019 for the aforesaid offences and investigated the matter.

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

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.

¶37

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.

¶38

¶39

Few other material documents depicting

¶40

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.

¶41

Investigation agency also recorded the

¶42

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.

¶43

Learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused persons.

¶44

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:

¶45

¶46

That the initiation of criminal case against the petitioners is illegal and made on baseless allegations, resulted in the abuse of process of law.

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

That none of the ingredients for which the charge sheet is filed are satisfied and attracted and hence the entire proceedings are vitiated.

¶50

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,

¶51

¶52

causing harassment of facing the trial when there are bleak chances of success of their conviction.

¶53

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.

¶54

Sri.S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for the

¶55

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.

¶56

He further contended that materials collected by the investigation agency which is part of the charge sheet, prima faci e 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.

¶57

¶58

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.

¶59

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.

¶60

Per contra, Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the grounds of the petition and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶61

She further contended that materials collected by the investigation agency inasmuch as the

¶62

¶63

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.

¶64

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

¶65

¶66

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.

¶67

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.

¶68

Having heard the arguments of parties in detail, this Court has given its anxious consideration to the material on record.

¶69

On such meticulous perusal of the material on record, it would go to show that there are different

¶70

¶71

handwritings in the main answer script and

¶72

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.

¶73

After registering the case based on the complaint filed by complainant, in crime No.67/2019, the Investigation Agency conducted a detailed investigation.

¶74

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.

¶75

¶76

Holding a mini trial to ascertain the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners is deprecated in Catena of Judicial Pronouncements.

¶77

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.

¶78

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

¶79

¶80

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.

¶81

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.

¶82

¶83

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.

¶84

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.

¶85

¶86

Therefore, this Court is of the considered

¶87

opinion that the grounds urged in the petition are hardly sufficient to quash the pending charge sheet against the petitioners.

¶88

Hence, the following:

¶89

ORDER

¶90

i. Petition is dismissed .

¶91

ii. However, it is made clear that the

¶92

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.

¶93

Sd/(V.SRISHANANDA)

¶94

JUDGE

¶95

KAV

Raju S/O Mohiddinsab Kuntoji v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju S/O Mohiddinsab Kuntoji v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fayum Alias Fayumbadsha S/O Jafar Baligar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Markhand S/O Timmanna Bandiwaddar Vs the State of Karnataka

Laxman S/O Gangappa Koravar Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Blue Ocean Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Excise

Jayanti C Kalawadmath Vs the State of Karnataka

Parappa S/O. Yellappa Byakod Vs State of Karnataka