Petitioners, office-bearers and directors of a school, sought quashing of proceedings alleging tampering with an attendance register to secure grant-in-aid benefits for an employee. The High Court found prima facie material constituting offences under Section 420 IPC and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3438 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka
NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017
HC-KAR
W/O. BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. ANAJI GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT, (A-8), DIRECTOR OF ANJENAYA HIGH SCHOOL, YERAGUNTE - 577 007.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA A., ADVOCATE
V/O DT.16/12/24, P1 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(R1 - SD/-
SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R2)
NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1249/2016 ON THE FILE OF JMFCIII COURT, DAVANAGERE IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERN.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners being accused Nos.2 to 4, 6, 8 to 10 in Cr.No.5/2015 of Gandhi Nagar police station, pending in CC No.1249/2016 on the file of the learned JMFC III Court, Davanagere registered for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 471, 420 R/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
the petitioners and Smt. Sowmya R, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 remained absent despite service of notice. Hence, his argument is taken as nil. Perused the materials on record.
NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017
HC-KAR
counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following:
REASONS
Officer has filed the first information with Gandhi Nagar police station, Davanagere against accused Nos.1 to 10 alleging that he was directed by the Commissioner of Education to lodge the complaint as it was found that these accused, who are running Educational Institution, have tampered with public document, attendance register only to help one Jeenath Unnissa to get the grant in aid from the department of Education. Even though she was appointed on 02.02.2000, whereas, the documents were concocted to show that she was appointed on 02.06.1999. There was an attempt made by the accused by concoction of
HC-KAR
the document to make wrongful gain for Jeenath Unnissa, even
though she is not entitled for the same and thereby committed cheating. The investigation was undertaken and the final report came to be filed against accused Nos. 1 to 10.
State of Andhra Pradesh and another1 wherein, the Court
has held at paragraph 12 as under:
1 2025 INSC 1096
NC: 2026:KHC:2910 CRL.P No. 3438 of 2017
HC-KAR
is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property."
the petitioner contended that there is none of the ingredients to attract Section 420 of IPC is made out in the present case.
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property .- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
HC-KAR
appointed on 02.02.2000. If the said tampered document is to be accepted by the Educational Department, Jeenath Unnissa would definitely benefited illegally and dishonestly, as she was not entitled for such benefit. Under such circumstances, at this stage, it cannot be concluded by saying that Section 420 of IPC is not attracted.
ORDER
The criminal petition is dismissed .
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
BH
CT:VS
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners made out grounds to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 466, 471 and 420 IPC for tampering with an attendance register?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and anotherReferred¶5
2025 INSC 1096 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Nirmala W/o. Thimmappa
G. T. Thimmappa
Gurumurthy S/o. Kalmathada Guruvappa
Gopala S/o of Meke Veerappa
Smt. Venkatamma W/o. Basavarajappa
Smt. Nagarathnamma W/o. Nagendrappa
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
