DR SOMASHEKAR S P vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10480 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
DR. SOMASHEKAR S.P.,
S/O PRASANNA KUMAR.S,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT J-NEST 8,
HOUSE NO.303, L.G HALLI,
R.M.V IIND STAGE, DOLLARS COLONY,
BENGALURU - 94.
(ADDRESS AS PER AADHAR CARD)
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI.RAJATH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY J.B NAGAR P.S,
BENGALURU.
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 01.
2. DR. SHANKAR B.C,
S/O C.S.CHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by
PADMAVATHI
B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT NO.98/2, MANIPAL HOSPITAL,
RUSTOM BAGH, OLD AIRPORT ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 017.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. H.MUJTABA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER QUASHING THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC 70189/2024 ARISING OUT OF FIR DATED
10.12.2022 IN CR NO.277/2022 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 J.B NAGAR P.S, BENGALURU PENDING
BEFORE THE LD. X ADDL.CMM AGAINST THE PETITIONER
HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 465 AND 471 OF I.P.C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner, a doctor, stands before the Court calling in
question proceedings in C.C.No.70189 of 2024 registered for
offences punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri H.S. Chandramouli, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
and Sri H.Mujtaba, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, germane,
are as follows: -
3.1. The petitioner, a qualified Oncologist, joins the
service of Manipal Hospital in the month of August 2003; works
at Manipal Hospital up to 1-09-2022 in various capacities such
as, Head of Oncology Department, Cancer Speciality Director
and Chairman of the Surgical Department. The petitioner after
rendering nearly 2 decades of service at Manipal Hospital, gets
an employment in Aster DM Healthcare, Bengaluru to the post
of Director, Oncology Services. In furtherance of the said offer,
an employment communication dated 13-06-2022 was issued
to the petitioner followed by a formal letter of appointment.
Consequent upon such appointment order, the petitioner
tendered his resignation to the administration of Manipal
Hospital. The resignation was accepted and he was duly
relieved of his duties. Thereafter, the petitioner joins duties at
Aster Hospital.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
3.2. After the petitioner joins at Aster DM Healthcare,
between 8-11-2022 and 21-11-2022 Manipal Hospital is said to
have received an electronic communication from an entity
known as Dataflow Services, whose services Aster DM
Healthcare had engaged for the purpose of verification of
certificates of all doctors in the Hospital. The electronic
communication from Dataflow Services goes to Manipal Hospital
for verification of an experience certificate said to have been
issued by Manipal hospital. The issue crops up then, on the
score that Manipal Hospital has never issued any experience
certificate and the signature found on the experience certificate
is said to be forged.
3.3. On the premise of alleged act of forgery by the
petitioner, a complaint comes to be lodged before the
jurisdictional Police alleging commission of offences punishable
under Sections 465 and 471 of the IPC for the offences
pertaining to forgery and use of forged documents. The
complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.277 of 2022.
Investigation is conducted and upon completion thereof, the
Police file a ‘B’ report, finding no material to prosecute the
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
nd
petitioner. The 2 respondent/Manipal Hospital – complainant
prefers a protest petition. The concerned Court rejects ‘B’
report, takes cognizance of the aforesaid two offences and
issues summons to the petitioner. It is issuance of summons
that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONER:
4. Learned senior counsel Sri H.S. Chandramouli along
with Sri Rajath appearing for the petitioner would vehemently
contend that the entire prosecution is founded upon absurdity.
The petitioner possessed professional experience, which the
whole world knew and did not want any experience certificate
for that purpose as he was most eminent Oncologist in the city
of Bengaluru. It is only a heart-burn that the petitioner leaves
Manipal Hospital and joins the other hospital. All was well for
three months. The staff who were with the petitioner also left
Manipal Hospital and joined at Aster DM Healthcare. It is then
all the problems have cropped up. He would submit that there
was no necessity for the petitioner to have forged the
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
experience certificate which is said to have been issued by
Manipal Hospital.
COMPLAINANT:
nd
5. Contrariwise, the learned counsel appearing for the 2
respondent/Manipal Hospital would submit that the signature
appearing on the experience certificate is demonstrably forged,
as it is the finding of a private Forensic Laboratory, which
according to him prima facie establishes forgery of the
signature. He would submit that experience certificate is not
forged, but the signature on the certificate is forged. He would
contend that the concerned Court has appropriately rejected ‘B’
report and has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences and
issued summons. The petitioner should come out clean in a full-
blown trial.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also
toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the
complainant.
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.
CONSIDERATION:
8. The foundational facts are largely undisputed. The
petitioner, a reputed oncologist of considerable standing,
whose professional credentials are neither obscure nor
disputed enters the service of Manipal Hospital in the year
2003 in the Oncology Department, on 1-08-2003 and served
the institution for nearly 19 years. Thereafter, the petitioner
accepts a superior professional opportunity and joins a
competing hospital - Aster DM Healthcare, as Director of
Oncology Services. It appears that this departure from Manipal
Hospital generated more than mere disappointment. It seems
to have sown the seeds of institutional resentment. The
resentment got amplified when the staff of Manipal Hospital
working with the petitioner also moved to Aster DM Healthcare
later.
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
9. When things stood thus, a communication from a third-
party verification agency ‘Dataflow Services’ appears to have
triggered the present controversy. It is at this juncture that the
complainant suddenly discovers that the petitioner after
rendering almost two decades of service has allegedly forged
the signature on the experience certificate. Significantly, the
allegation is not that the petitioner has fabricated the
experience certificate; rather the grievance is confined
to the alleged forgery of a signature on a document
certifying his experience that was otherwise
unquestionable.
10. Nothing could be more startling, if not deeply
disquieting than the spectacle of an institution accusing
a doctor – who devotedly served it, for nearly 20 years,
of forging proof of experience, that the institution itself
had witnessed, benefitted from, can scarcely be denied
by the institution. Notwithstanding the same, a complaint
nd
comes to be registered by the 2 respondent/Manipal Hospital.
The complaint so registered reads as follows:
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
“09-12-2022
Police Inspector or SHO
Jeevan Bheema Nagar Bangalore
Sir/s,
Sub: Complaint for fraudulent misrepresentation, Forgery,
and illegal use of official letter heads of Manipal
Hospital Old Airport Road Bangalore to make
fictious claims
I Dr Shankar B C major by age and working for gain as
Head Medical Services at Manipal Hospital Old Airport
Road ["Hospital"] Bengaluru having address at Rustom
Bagh Old Airport Road Bengaluru which is the hospital
unit of M/s. Manipal Health Enterprises Private Limited a
company incorporated under Companies Act 1956 having
its registered office at#93/2 Rustom Bagh Old Airport
Road Bengaluru wish to file this complaint and state as
hereunder
1. That, intention of filing this complaint with this
authority is that one company operating under the
name & style Dataflow Services (India) Private
Limited claimed to be an employment background
verification company. The said company was
represented by its operations officer by name Ms
th
Poonam Rawat sent me an email on 8 November
st
2022 and 21 November 2022 10:55 seeking
information about the genuineness of the
documents, engagement profile Claimed, Tenure
Tenure profile claimed, achievement profiles
claimed on one of our doctors by name Dr.
Somashekhar S P who was heading our Oncology
division at our hospital
2. That in view of the foregoing solicitation made by
us were also provided certain documents which Dr
Somashekhar S P seemingly have used to seek his
engagement in Aster Hospital India and its Units
allegedly abroad. We pursued the document and
realised that the documents furnished by the
Dataflow Services (India) Private Limited for our
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
verification was forged one and were not genuine. I
also found the My Signatures were forged .
Further we also verified various data points claimed
within the documents under my Forged signatures
and so found that they were dodged. Citing this
malicious activity, I have replied to Dataflow
Services (India) Private Limited vide my email
st
dated 21 November 2022 11:44 in reply that the
documents so claimed by the Dr Somashekhar S P
to seek engagement is forged and not genuine.
3. In fact, the increased incidents of this nature clearly
show that organisation like Manipal will in future
becomes soft target and the miscreants have no
fear for law of the land. In the light of the
foregoing, we humbly crave with your good offices
that there is need for a conscious effort to
checkmate these undesirable fallouts who function
with an intent to unlawfully gain a benefit for
themselves hence the complaint.
th
4. We are enclosing the copies of the email dated 8
st
November 2022, 21 November 2022, Copies of the
documents Furnished by Dataflow Services (India)
Private Limited for confirming the genuineness
We humbly urge your good offices to investigate the
matter and take suitable actions against such miscreants.
We state that the present case falls under your
jurisdiction therefore we humbly urge your good offices to
investigate the matter and take suitable actions against
such miscreants.
Please acknowledge the receipt.
For Manipal Hospital Old Airport Road Bangalore
[Unit of M/s. Manipal Health Enterprise Private limited]”
This becomes a crime in Crime No.277 of 2022 for offences
punishable under Sections 465 and 471 of the IPC.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
11. Upon registration of the crime, investigation was
conducted culminating in the Police filing a ‘B’ report. The
investigating agency found no material to justify the
prosecution. Ordinarily such closure ought to have brought the
matter to a quietus, instead the Manipal Hospital files a protest
petition, which culminates in the rejection of ‘B’ report and
taking of cognizance of the afore-quoted two offences and
issuance of process against the petitioner. The reasons so
rendered in the order of issuance of summons are as follows:
“…. …. ….
5. It is the specific allegation of the complainant
that, accused used to work as a Doctor with Manipal
Hospital and in order to obtain employment at Aster
Hospital, forged the signature of CW1 on the letter head
of Manipal Hospital and submitted the same at Aster
Hospital. Complainant has produced the Emails received
from Dataflow for verification along with experience
certificate and log book submitted by the accused for the
employment which is produced as Ex.C5. CW1 has also
produced Email conversations between him and Dataflow
as Ex. C6 to 10. He has also produced the FSL report
which is marked as Ex.C11, where the independent
Forensic Lab gave opinion that, signature found in the
experience certificate sent by Dataflow for verification did
not belong to CW1.
6. At this stage, on perusal of the complaint and
the sworn statement and the documents produced, the
complainant has made out the prima facie case for issuing
process against accused for answering the plea for the
offences punishable under Section 465, 471 of IPC.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
Cognizance is taken against accused for the offence
punishable under Section 465, 471 of I.P.C.
Office is directed to register the case against the
accused in Register No.III for the offence punishable
under Section 465, 471 of I.P.C.
Issue summons to accused, if steps taken,
R/by 10.01 2026.”
The cognizance order appears to have been passed upon
Forensic Laboratory report of a private entity, which is sent by
the complainant, and endorsed by the complainant. Such report
of private Forensic entity cannot be given any credence is now
too well settled a principle of law. Forensic examination must
be done by an authorized Government laboratory which would
be the Forensic Science Laboratory established by the State.
The order of taking cognizance basing purely on the private
Forensic information cannot be sustained on this reason as
well. As observed hereinabove, it is this order that drives the
petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. If the complaint
and issuance of summons are read in tandem, on the face of
the record, the ‘B’ report merited acceptance. What emerges
prima facie is less a case of criminality and more an
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
instance of criminal law being invoked as an instrument
of retaliation. The timing, circumstances and nature of
allegation unmistakably suggest an attempt to arm-twist
the petitioner from choosing to leave one institution to
another. Criminal prosecution cannot be permitted to
degenerate into such a weapon.
12. The allegation that the petitioner forged the
signature on the experience certificate, which he neither
requires nor stood to materially benefit from is so
inherently improbable that compelling him to undergo
the rigmarole or an ordeal of trial would itself amount to
punishment. The learned Magistrate while rejecting the ‘B’
report has failed to advert to the surrounding circumstances
and the material gathered during investigation. The order of
taking cognizance after rejecting ‘B’ report suffers from blatant
non-application of mind.
13. Doctors must be left to pursue the noble avocation of
healing, untrammeled by the looming spectre of unwarranted
criminal prosecution. A medical professional ought not to be
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
drawn into the dragnet of criminal law, unless the allegations
unmistakably disclose overwhelming criminality or culpable
negligence of such a degree as to border upon a criminal
offence. To invoke the coercive machinery of criminal law on
anything less would not merely inflict grave prejudice upon the
individual doctor, but would also cast a chilling shadow over the
fearless discharge of medical duties.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on
record, the documents to demonstrate unquestionable repute
of the petitioner and his standing in the field of Oncology. The
elevated role in a competing hospital cannot mean that a
doctor would indulge himself in forgery. To iterate,
resentment, however profound or deeply felt, is no substitute
for the ingredients of a criminal offence. Criminal law cannot be
permitted to become an instrument for the vindication of
institutional displeasure or personal animosity. It is in these
circumstances, the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF
1
HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL has held as follows:
1
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such
power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of
justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and
inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an
exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such
power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute
a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted
by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate
as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned
Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of
the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of
the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him due
to private and personal grudge.”
(Emphasis supplied)
It has been repeatedly declared that a criminal
proceeding which, on its very inception, bears the
unmistakable imprint of abuse of the process of law
ought to be nipped in the bud. In the case at hand,
however, the proceeding has travelled beyond that
embryonic stage; the bud has partially blossomed, only
to reveal the unmistakable contours of an abuse of the
criminal process. To implicate the petitioner- a doctor, in
criminal action not for any independent culpable act, but
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
merely because stands caught in the cross fire of two
competing hospitals, would on the face of it, be a patent
abuse of the process of the law. The allegations levelled
against the petitioner, even if accepted at their highest, fail to
disclose the commission of any offence known to law. To
nevertheless compel the petitioner to endure the rigours of a
criminal trial would run afoul of the principles enunciated by the
Apex Court in the judgment noticed supra . Such a course
would inexorably culminate in a miscarriage of justice.
15. The criminal justice system exists to vindicate
genuine legal wrongs, punish culpable conduct, and
preserve the rule of law. It is not designed to serve as a
convenient forum for ventilating institutional
resentment, personal vendetta, or wounded pride under
the thin veneer of criminal allegations. To permit the
criminal process to be so employed would erode its
sanctity .
16. This Court consciously refrains, for the present,
from venturing into the question of initiating
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:32946
CRL.P No. 10480 of 2025
HC-KAR
proceedings for malicious prosecution against the
complainant. The peculiar facts obtaining in the present
case would have furnished substantial grounds for
serious contemplation of such a course. The Court,
nevertheless, leaves that question open, trusting that
this order will itself serve as a reminder that the majesty
of criminal law cannot be invoked to settle scores born
out of resentment or institutional displeasure.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
O R D E R
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Entire proceedings in C.C.No.70189 of 2024 arising
out of Crime No.277 of 2022 pending before the X
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru
stand quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2