Dismissed¶¶54

Sri Raghavendra N v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC18 Aug 2025CRL.P/10155/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), CRL.P No.10155 of 2025, decided 18-08-2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:31924) before Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum — Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition of a Village Administrative Officer (accused No.8) arraigned with revenue officials for facilitating a fraudulent Birth Certificate to aid a POCSO-case accused (Crime No.85/2023) dismissed; disputed questions of fact left to full-fledged trial; I.A.No.1/2025 also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Quashing jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the allegations on the face of the charge sheet do not disclose any offence; here the charge sheet materials prima facie disclose active involvement of revenue officials, including the petitioner, in facilitating the generation of a fraudulent Birth Certificate. ¶¶46

Sri Raghavendra N Vs the State of Karnataka by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in C.C. No.268/2025 (Crime No.138/2023) against the petitioner, arrayed as accused No.8, for offences punishable under Sections 197, 198, 205, 419, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶¶24

Court's answer

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

The records prima facie disclose that the Birth Certificate was generated in undue haste, without adherence to the statutory procedure, and intended to influence the course of trial in a serious offence involving a minor victim; creating or facilitating official records at the behest of private parties in violation of due procedure is a serious matter that cannot be lightly brushed aside.

¶¶44

Key takeaways

The petitioner's contention that his name is not reflected in the FIR or that his login credentials were not used for final approval cannot be accepted at this stage; whether or not he had any direct role in approving the issuance of the certificate is a matter to be established during a full-fledged trial on appreciation of evidence.ratio¶¶44
The contentions urged by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.; the veracity of his defence (login ID not used, not the competent authority) can only be examined during trial on oral and documentary evidence.ratio¶¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (filed under Section 528 BNSS) by accused No.8, a Village Administrative Officer, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.268/2025 (Crime No.138/2023, Manchenahalli Police Station) for offences punishable under Sections 197, 198, 205, 419, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur. Prosecution alleged that the petitioner, in collusion with other accused and revenue authorities, facilitated issuance of a Birth Certificate within a day, without proper verification, to enable accused No.5 — prosecuted in Crime No.85/2023 under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) IPC and Sections 5(j)(iii) and 6 of the POCSO Act — to use it in his defence. The Court held that the charge sheet materials prima facie disclosed active involvement of revenue officials including the petitioner; that the Birth Certificate was generated in undue haste without adherence to statutory procedure, intended to influence the trial of a heinous offence involving a minor victim; that the petitioner's contentions (absence from FIR, non-use of his login ID) raised disputed questions of fact not adjudicable in a Section 482 petition and examinable only at trial; and that no ground for quashing was made out. Petition dismissed, along with I.A.No.1/2025.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31924 CRL.P No. 10155 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10155 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. RAGHAVENDRA N S/O NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT. NAGARAGERE VILLAGE AND HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST - 561 228. WORKING AS,

¶11

VILLAGE ADMINISTRATE OFFICER, ALLIPURA REVINUE CIRCLE, THONDEBHAVI HOBLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DIST - 561 213.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA A C., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANCHENAHALLI POLICE STATION, MANCHENAHALLI, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 211. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

SRI. MAHESHA S PATRI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, TAHASILDAR,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:31924 CRL.P No. 10155 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.268/2025(CRIME NO.138/2023), PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT AT GOWRIBIDANUR, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 197, 198, 205, 419, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 READ WITH 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MANCHENAHALLI POLICE STATION VIDE ANNEXURE -A.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner, arrayed as accused No.8, is working

¶29

as the Village Administrative Officer of Allipura. He has approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.268/2025, arising out of Crime No.138/2023, for offences punishable under Sections 197, 198, 205, 419, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC, which is now pending on the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:31924 CRL.P No. 10155 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gowribidanur, Chikkaballapura District.

¶34

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, in collusion with other accused persons, facilitated the issuance of a Birth Certificate within a day, in order to enable accused No.5, who is facing prosecution under the provisions of the POCSO Act, to use the same in his defence. It is alleged that the Birth Certificate was generated in undue haste, without proper verification of records, and with an oblique motive to aid accused No.5 in evading the consequences of a serious criminal prosecution.

¶35

3. The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, acting in his official capacity as Village Administrative Officer, failed in his duty of due verification and by acceding to the request of certain officials, approved the issuance of a Birth Certificate that was intended to be pressed into service in criminal proceedings

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31924 CRL.P No. 10155 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

involving offences under the POCSO Act. The said

¶39

document, according to the prosecution, is a fabricated and fraudulent record, brought into existence to dilute the case registered against accused No.5 for heinous offences.

¶40

4. The petitioner, on the other hand, has contended that his name did not find mention in the FIR and that he had no role in the preparation or issuance of the Birth Certificate. He has further urged that his login ID was never used for final approval of the said certificate and, therefore, he cannot be made liable for the acts of other officials who may have been responsible for generating the document.

¶41

5. On consideration of the charge sheet materials, this Court finds that the Birth Certificate in question is a crucial document, allegedly brought into existence by collusion between private individuals and revenue authorities, with the specific object of enabling accused No.5 to contest the prosecution in Crime No.85/2023

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31924 CRL.P No. 10155 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 5(j)(iii) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The records prima facie disclose that the Birth Certificate was generated in undue haste, without adherence to the statutory procedure, and intended to influence the course of trial in a serious offence involving a minor victim. The contention of the petitioner that his name is not reflected in the FIR or that his login credentials were not used for final approval cannot, at this stage, be accepted. Whether or not the petitioner had any direct role in approving the issuance of the certificate is a matter to be established during the course of a full-fledged trial on appreciation of evidence.

¶45

6. This Court is mindful of the fact that quashing

¶46

jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the allegations on the face of the charge sheet do not disclose any offence. In the present case, the materials placed along with the charge sheet prima facie disclose active involvement of revenue officials, including

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31924 CRL.P No. 10155 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

the petitioner, in facilitating the generation of a fraudulent Birth Certificate. The act of creating or facilitating creation of official records at the behest of private parties, in violation of due procedure, is a serious matter and cannot be lightly brushed aside, especially when such records are sought to be used in criminal proceedings relating to a heinous offence under the POCSO Act.

¶50

7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the contentions urged by the petitioner involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The veracity of the petitioner’s defence, namely, that his login ID was not used or that he was not the competent authority, can only be examined during trial on the basis of oral and documentary evidence.

¶51

8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court holds that no ground is made out for quashing the proceedings at this stage.

¶52