SRI. VEERANJANEYA vs THE RAMANAGARA TOWN POLICE

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61687
CRL.P No. 1068 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010043102025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1068 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)

/ 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

SRI. VEERANJANEYA
S/O LATE P NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ST
R/AT 1 CROSS
DEVINAGARA
HOSAPTE
VIJAYANAGARA
KARNATAKA

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI M R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE RAMANAGARA TOWN POLICE
RAMANAGARA
REPRESETNEG BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU 560002

…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528
BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.45/2024 REGISTERED IN OFFENCE P/U/S 417, 465, 466,
468, 471 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC DATED 18.03.2020 (CR.NO.47/2020)
DATED ARISING OUT OF CHARGE SHEET DATED 27.07.2024
PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DV.) AND CJM
COURT, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT FILED AGAINST HIM BY THE











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61687
CRL.P No. 1068 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010043102025


RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417, 465, 466, 468,
471 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC 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. Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.45/2024
registered in offence p/u/s 417, 465, 466, 468, 471
r/w sec. 34 of ipc dated 18.03.2020
(Cr.No.47/2020) dated arising out of charge sheet
dated 27.07.2024 pending before the Principal Civil
Judge (Sr.Dv.) and CJM Court, Ramanagara District
filed against him by the respondent police for the
offence p/u/s 417, 465, 466, 468, 471 r/w sec. 34
of IPC; and

b. Pass such other orders as deems fit to the Hon’ble
Court in the circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice.

2. The Assistant Administrative Officer, Ramanagara
Police, lodged a complaint on 18.03.2020 alleging
that one Smt.R.Savitharani had submitted certain
educational documents in support of her claim for
appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. The said documents were forwarded for verification
to the concerned educational authorities. Dr.
Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra, upon
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61687
CRL.P No. 1068 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010043102025


verification, reportedly informed the authorities that
the marks cards submitted were not genuine.
Similarly, the Board of Higher Secondary Education,
New Delhi, informed the authorities that the school
concerned was not affiliated to the Board and that
the marks card in question had not been issued by it.

4. On the basis of the information received from the
said authorities, the complainant sought initiation of
appropriate action. Consequently, Ramanagara Town
Police registered Crime No.47/2020 for the offences
punishable under Sections 417, 465, 466, 468, 471
and 34 of the IPC.

5. Investigation was undertaken and, upon its
completion, a charge sheet came to be filed on
27.07.2024. The petitioner has been arrayed as
Accused No.5 in the charge sheet and has
approached this Court seeking quashing of the
proceedings insofar as he is concerned.

6. Sri Ravi M.R., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the implication of the
petitioner as Accused No.5 is founded exclusively on
the voluntary statement allegedly made by Accused
No.4 during investigation.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61687
CRL.P No. 1068 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010043102025



6.1. It is contended that, according to the statement
of Accused No.4, he had requested Accused
No.5 to procure fabricated marks cards and
certificates. It is further alleged that Accused
No.5 had arranged for preparation of the said
documents and handed them over to Accused
No.4, who, in turn, delivered them to Accused
No.1.

6.2. Learned counsel submits that the alleged
voluntary statement of Accused No.4, being a
statement made to the police, is inadmissible in
evidence against the petitioner in view of
Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It
is therefore contended that, in the absence of
any independent material connecting the
petitioner with the alleged fabrication or
procurement of the documents, the
continuation of the criminal proceedings against
him would be an abuse of the process of law.

7. Upon being specifically queried by the Court as to
whether the charge sheet contains any independent
material corroborating the alleged involvement of
Accused No.5, the learned High Court Government
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61687
CRL.P No. 1068 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010043102025


Pleader submits that the investigation has not
yielded any such material.

8. It is stated that, although Accused No.4 has referred
to the location where the marks cards were allegedly
prepared, the said location no longer exists. No
seizure or recovery has been effected in that regard.
Further, no statement of any other witness or other
material collected during investigation is stated to
implicate Accused No.5 in the alleged preparation or
procurement of the fabricated documents.

9. The rival submissions require consideration in the
context of the evidentiary value of a confession or
statement made by a co-accused to the police and
the nature of the material required to sustain
criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

10. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872,
expressly provides that no confession made to a
police officer shall be proved as against a person
accused of an offence. The statutory prohibition is
intended to exclude confessions made to police
officers from being used as evidence against an
accused, subject to the limited exception recognised
under Section 27 of the said Act.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61687
CRL.P No. 1068 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010043102025



11. In the present case, the allegation against Accused
No.5 is stated to arise from the disclosure made by
Accused No.4 that he had approached Accused No.5
for procuring fabricated educational documents and
that Accused No.5 had arranged for their preparation
and delivery.

12. Even assuming that such a statement was made by
Accused No.4 during investigation, the same cannot,
merely by virtue of having been recorded by the
investigating agency, constitute substantive evidence
against Accused No.5. The evidentiary value of a
confession made by a co-accused is also governed by
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, subject to the
conditions prescribed therein. Such a confession
cannot, by itself, be treated as substantive evidence
establishing the guilt of another accused.

13. In the present case, the learned High Court
Government Pleader, upon being specifically
questioned, has fairly submitted that no independent
material has been collected to connect Accused No.5
with the alleged fabrication or procurement of the
documents. There is no seizure or recovery
attributable to the petitioner, nor is any other
witness stated to have implicated him. The alleged
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61687
CRL.P No. 1068 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010043102025


location where the documents were purportedly
prepared is also stated to be no longer in existence.

14. Thus, the material presently available against the
petitioner is confined to the statement attributed to
Accused No.4. In the absence of any independent
material connecting the petitioner with the alleged
offences, the prosecution against him cannot be
sustained merely on the basis of such a statement.

15. The continuation of criminal proceedings in these
circumstances, without any legally sustainable
material indicating the petitioner's involvement,
would amount to an abuse of the process of law. This
Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the
proceedings in C.C. No.45/2024 are liable to be
quashed insofar as the petitioner, who is arrayed as
Accused No.5, is concerned.

16. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not
preclude the investigating agency from undertaking
further investigation in accordance with law and, if
legally admissible and sufficient material is
subsequently collected disclosing the involvement of
the petitioner, from taking appropriate steps in
accordance with the applicable procedural law.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61687
CRL.P No. 1068 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010043102025


ORDER
allowed
i. The criminal petition is .

ii. The proceedings in C.C. No.45/2024, arising out of
Crime No.47/2020 of Ramanagara Town Police
Station, pursuant to the charge sheet dated
27.07.2024, pending on the file of the Principal
Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ramanagara District, are hereby
quashed insofar as the petitioner, arrayed as
Accused No.5, is concerned.

iii. Liberty is reserved to the investigating agency to
undertake further investigation in accordance with
law and, if legally admissible material disclosing
the involvement of the petitioner is collected, to
take appropriate consequential steps in
accordance with law.

iv. It is clarified that the proceedings against the
remaining accused, if any, shall remain unaffected
by this order.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14