SRI. KASHILINGEGOWDA S B vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57518
CRL.P No. 904 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010035952025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 904 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

SRI. KASHILINGEGOWDA S B
S/O LATE BORAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
PSI BYADARAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY 560091

R/AT NO.151, NEAR HUTTADA MAYAMMA TEMPLE,
SANABA, TUMKURU-57211.

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARAYANASWAMY K N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE,
REP BY STATE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE 560001.

2.





3.











S.T.CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENQUIRY,
BANGALORE CITY-560001.

RAGHAVENDRA H. EDAGI,
S/O HANUMANT EDAGI PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57518
CRL.P No. 904 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010035952025



R/AT OPP. MES COLLEGE,
NEAR INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK,
TH
MALLESHWRAM 15 CROSS,
BENGALURU-560003.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED;
SRI. PHANIRAJ KASHYAP., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR L.C.R. IN CRIME. NO. 118/2024
OF VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE NOW WHICH IS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE HON'BLE XLI ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE COURT, BANGALORE CITY AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs
a. Call for L.C.R. in Crime. No. 118/2024 of Vidhana
soudha Police now which is pending on the file of
the Hon'ble XLI Additional Chief judicial magistrate
court, Bangalore city.

b. Quash the F.I.R in Crime. No. 118/2024 of Vidhana
soudha Police now which is pending on the file of
the Hon'ble XLI Additional Chief judicial magistrate
court, Bangalore city for the offences punishable
under sections, 198,420, 465,468,471, of Indian
Penal Code.

c. Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case in the interest of Justice.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57518
CRL.P No. 904 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010035952025




2. A complaint was filed by respondent No.2 on
information being provided by respondent No.3 and
one Sri.Lingaraju that the petitioner had got
fabricated the register relating to issuance of
administration of vaccinations, changing the Date of
birth of the petitioner from 15.04.1988 to
15.04.1987 so as to make himself eligible to take
part in the selection process for the post of the Police
Sub-Inspector and on that basis it is contended that
there are offences which were committed under
Section 198, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC.

3. Pursuant to the said complaint, an FIR in Crime
No.118 of 2024 was registered by the Vidhana
Soudha Police Station on 24.12.2024 for offences
under Sections 198, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the
IPC. It is challenging the same that the petitioner is
before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. The submission of Sri.K.N.Narayanaswamy., learned
counsel for the petitioner is that;

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner’s date of birth was altered from
15.04.1988 to 15.04.1987 pursuant to a decree
passed by a competent civil Court in O.S.
No.255 of 2017, whereby rectification of the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57518
CRL.P No. 904 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010035952025



date of birth was directed. In view of the said
decree, which continues to remain in force, it is
contended that initiation of criminal
proceedings against the petitioner in respect of
the said alteration is unwarranted.

4.2. Learned counsel further submits that
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the
petitioner were challenged before the
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Bengaluru, in Application No.2324 of 2025. The
Tribunal, by order dated 23.07.2025, allowed
the application, holding that the decree passed
by a competent civil Court could not be
disregarded by treating it as void and that,
unless the decree was set aside by a competent
forum, the disciplinary proceedings could not
proceed on that basis.

4.3. It is therefore contended that the same
principle would apply to the present
proceedings, inasmuch as the decree passed in
O.S. No.255 of 2017 continues to remain valid
and operative. Learned counsel submits that, so
long as the decree subsists, the petitioner
cannot be subjected to criminal proceedings
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57518
CRL.P No. 904 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010035952025



founded upon the very alteration of the date of
birth that was directed by the competent civil
Court.

5. Sri.Phaniraj Kashyap., learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 would submit that;

5.1. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of
Police reported in (2002) 8 SCC 87, more
particularly para 32 thereof, which is
reproduced hereunder for reference;
32. In the present case, the decision rendered by
the Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff case [AIR
1954 SC 397 : 1954 Cri LJ 1019] would be
binding, wherein it has been specifically held that
no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down and that
possibility of conflicting decision in civil and
criminal courts is not a relevant consideration. The
law envisages
“such an eventuality when it expressly refrains
from making the decision of one court binding on
the other, or even relevant, except for limited
purpose such as sentence or damages”.

5.2. By relying on K.G.Premshanker’s case , his
submission is that both civil and criminal
proceedings could go hand in hand, when there
are allegations made as regards criminal
offences.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57518
CRL.P No. 904 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010035952025




5.3. His submission is that in the present case the
very basis of the decree was on the changes on
the fabrication made to the register, which is
what is sought to be investigated, and this
investigation can go in parallel and it cannot be
said that without investigation the decree being
valid the respondents are bound by it and no
criminal investigation could be resorted to.

6. Heard Sri.K.N.Narayanaswamy., learned counsel for
the petitioner, Smt.Rashmi Patel., learned HCGP for
respondent No.1 and Sri.Phaniraj Kashyap., learned
counsel for respondent No.3, perused papers.

7. The short question that would arise for consideration
in the present matter is;
“Whether the decree directing the change of
Date of birth could come in the way of
investigation being carried out as regards the
allegations made of forgery and cheating”.

8. The material facts giving rise to the dispute are not
in controversy. The principal contention advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner’s date of birth was altered pursuant to a
decree passed by a competent Civil Court. By the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57518
CRL.P No. 904 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010035952025



said decree, the defendants therein were directed to
correct the date of birth of the plaintiff, namely, the
petitioner herein, in the school records and marks
cards from 15.04.1987 to 15.04.1988.

9. A perusal of the plaint indicates that the claim for
correction of the date of birth was founded upon the
mother card issued in relation to the petitioner’s
mother and the petitioner, concerning their
vaccination. It was on the basis of the said document
that the Civil Court is stated to have granted the
decree directing correction of the date of birth.

10. The allegation against the petitioner, however, is that
the entries in the relevant register and vaccination
card were fabricated. The alleged fabrication is
stated to have occurred prior to the institution of the
civil proceedings and the passing of the decree.
Thus, the very documents on the basis of which the
decree came to be passed are alleged to be
fabricated. In such circumstances, the decree, by
itself, cannot operate as an absolute bar to an
investigation into the alleged fabrication of the
underlying documents. The respondents, if so
advised, may challenge the decree before the
appropriate forum in accordance with law,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57518
CRL.P No. 904 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010035952025



notwithstanding that they were not parties to the
proceedings in which it was passed. However, the
question whether the decree is liable to be set aside
is distinct from the question whether the allegations
of forgery and cheating warrant investigation.

11. The existence of a decree directing correction of the
date of birth does not, by itself, foreclose an
investigation into allegations that the documents
relied upon to obtain that decree were fabricated.
The allegations assume significance in the present
case because the alteration of the date of birth is
stated to have enabled the petitioner to claim
eligibility in the selection process for recruitment to
the post of Police Sub-Inspector. Whether the
documents were in fact fabricated, whether the
petitioner was involved in any such fabrication, and
whether the ingredients of the alleged offences are
made out are matters to be ascertained in the course
of investigation. These questions cannot be
conclusively determined merely by relying upon the
subsisting civil decree.

12. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that, ex facie, it cannot be held
that the allegations disclose no offence warranting
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57518
CRL.P No. 904 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010035952025



investigation or that the investigation is liable to be
interdicted solely on the ground that a decree
directing correction of the date of birth has been
passed by a competent Civil Court. The existence of
the said decree does not, in the circumstances of the
present case, constitute a ground to quash or
interdict the investigation. The investigation shall
proceed in accordance with law, and no opinion
expressed herein shall be construed as a finding on
the truth of the allegations or the guilt of the
petitioner.

13. As such, this Court passes the following;
ORDER

i. Criminal petition stands dismissed .

ii. Respondents are directed to carry out necessary
investigation at the earliest and file the
investigation report at the earliest.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE

SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2