Disposed

Sri. Vinod v. Vs State of Karnataka by Mandya

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2026CRL.P/202/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to quash criminal proceedings alleging forgery of academic credentials for employment. Bench held issues are disputed questions of fact and dismissed quashment seeking. Investigation permitted with limited protection against coercive action.

What did the court decide?

FIR quash petition disposed of; investigation permitted with direction to avoid coercive action until final report.

Sri. Vinod v Vs State of Karnataka by Mandya — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:1933 CRL.P No. 202 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. VINOD V S/O. VIRUPAKSHAIAH. N, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT ADARSHA NAGAR, NELAMANGALA TALUKU, ARASINAKUNTE, BANGALORE RURAL - 562 123.

¶11

&PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION- 571 401, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

RAVINDRA. K. R. S/O. LATE RAMAIAH. C, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT SHAMBHAVI NILAYA, M.C. ROAD, KALLAHALLI, V.V. NAGAR, MANDYA CITY, KARNATAKA - 571 401.

¶17

&RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP)

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1933 CRL.P No. 202 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.21/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 476, 468, 471 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM COURT, MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.21/2025 registered by Mandya West police station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

¶24

The gist of the complaint lodged by the second respondent3complainant is that pursuant to a notification issued by Nirmithi Kendra, Mandya, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Project Manager on contract basis, the petitioner is alleged to have submitted his application by producing a fabricated and forged marks card purportedly issued by the Karnataka State Open University (KSOU). It is alleged that the petitioner falsely represented himself as possessing an M.Tech qualification

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1933 CRL.P No. 202 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

and, on the basis of such alleged forged academic credentials, attempted to secure public employment. Based on the said complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered Crime No.21/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings primarily on the ground that, at the relevant point of time, the Karnataka State Open University had granted affiliation to several franchise/ collaborative study centres across the State of Karnataka, with a view to facilitating access to higher education. It is contended that the petitioner had duly enrolled in the M.Tech programme through one such affiliated institution, namely Venkateshwara Study Centre, situated at Mahalakshmi Layout, Bengaluru. According to the petitioner, although KSOU subsequently issued a notification in the year 2015 discontinuing all academic programmes conducted through

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:1933 CRL.P No. 202 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

collaborative institutions, the said notification was prospective in nature. It is further asserted that students who had already enrolled and pursued their courses through such institutions were permitted to complete the programme and were accordingly issued mark cards and degree certificates by KSOU. On this premise, the petitioner contends that the marks card and degree certificate relied upon by him are genuine, and therefore, the very initiation of criminal proceedings amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought quashment of the FIR and all further proceedings.

¶33

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State has stoutly opposed the petition. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, upon conducting a summary enquiry, has issued a communication dated 19.09.2023, wherein it is categorically opined that the petitioner had not obtained an M.Tech degree in Civil Engineering from KSOU. It is

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1933 CRL.P No. 202 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

submitted that the enquiry prima facie reveals that the academic credentials relied upon by the petitioner are doubtful. The learned HCGP would therefore contend that the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences involving fabrication and use of forged academic records for securing employment, which are serious in nature. He submits that at this nascent stage, when investigation is still underway, this Court ought not to exercise its inherent powers to quash the proceedings.

¶37

This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival submissions and has perused the materials placed on record. The petitioner asserts that he has completed his M.Tech in Structural Engineering through KSOU and that a degree certificate has been issued in his favour. However, the complaint lodged by the second respondent, which culminated in registration of the present crime, contains grave allegations that the academic records relied upon by the petitioner are fabricated and that the petitioner had never legitimately

¶38

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1933 CRL.P No. 202 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

pursued the M.Tech programme through KSOU or any institution validly affiliated to it. The specific allegation is that the so-called Venkateshwara Study Centre at Mahalakshmi Layout, Bengaluru was never an authorized or affiliated study centre of KSOU.

¶41

In the face of these diametrically opposite claims, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is for the Investigating Officer to conduct a comprehensive and fair investigation to ascertain:

¶42

i. whether any study centre by the name Venkateshwara Study Centre was functioning at the relevant point of time at Mahalakshmi Layout, Bengaluru;

¶43

ii. whether such a centre had valid affiliation or authorization from KSOU;

¶44

iii. whether the petitioner was lawfully admitted to the M.Tech programme; and

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:1933 CRL.P No. 202 of 2026

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

iv. whether the mark cards and degree certificate relied upon by the petitioner were in fact issued by KSOU in accordance with law.

¶49

While permitting the investigation to proceed unhindered, this Court deems it appropriate to grant limited protection to the petitioner. The Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to conduct a thorough investigation in accordance with law; however, no coercive or precipitative action shall be taken against the petitioner during the course of investigation, unless and until a final report is filed before the jurisdictional Court. Subject to the aforesaid limited protection, this Court finds that no further indulgence is warranted at this stage.

¶50

Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

¶51

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶52

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Sri. Vinod v. Vs State of Karnataka by Mandya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vinod v. Vs State of Karnataka by Mandya

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

Sri Kalegowda Vs Sri Nagaraja C

Smt K Sumathi Vs Sri M B Kambanna

Syed Sadiq Vs State of Karnataka

Sri C Annayappa Vs C Balappa

The University of Agricultural Science House Building Corporative Society Ltd. Vs Ashwanthnarayana Gowda

N Nagaraju Vs the State by