₹5.3-crore fake government job racket allegations: Karnataka High Court refuses to quash FIR against father-daughter duo

The petitioners, arraigned as Accused Nos. 1 and 2, challenged the registration of Crime No. 103/2025 by the CCB, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 506, 34, 120B, 419, 406, 504, 471, 468, 465 and 420 of the IPC, invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 of the BNSS.

The complaint alleged that the petitioners represented themselves as Congress Party leaders capable of securing Government employment and collected substantial amounts from job aspirants.

They were alleged to have created fictitious e-mail IDs, fabricated appointment orders, represented non-existent Government departments and conducted sham training programmes in places including Kolkata and Maharashtra.

The complaint alleged that approximately ₹5.30 crore had been collected through online transfers and cash from several aspirants.

The petitioners contended that none of the alleged victims had personally lodged a complaint and that the criminal case was motivated by an unrelated cheque-dishonour dispute under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, thereby constituting a counterblast.

The prosecution opposed quashing, asserting that the investigation disclosed a coordinated scheme involving fake appointment letters, fictitious departments, sham training centres and receipt of money from members of the public.

Whether the FIR and criminal proceedings in Crime No. 103/2025 disclosed a prima facie case warranting investigation for the alleged offences, or whether they were liable to be quashed under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS?

Whether the absence of complaints from the individual job aspirants and the alleged personal dispute between the complainant and the petitioners justified quashing the FIR as an abuse of process or counterblast?

The Court applied the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS, which may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of court and to secure the ends of justice, but not to stifle a legitimate investigation at its nascent stage.

The alleged conduct was examined with reference to Sections 420, 419, 406, 465, 468, 471, 506, 504, 120B and 34 of the IPC, concerning cheating, cheating by personation, criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal intimidation, intentional insult, criminal conspiracy and acts done in furtherance of common intention.

At the quashing stage, the Court considered whether the complaint, read prima facie and as a whole, disclosed specific and cognizable allegations; it did not undertake a determination of the truth of the accusations or conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the complaint was not a vague or omnibus allegation but contained a detailed account of the alleged modus operandi, including the collection of money from identified aspirants, fabrication of appointment orders and e-mail IDs, creation of sham Government establishments and organisation of false training programmes.

These allegations, if proved, went beyond a mere failed promise of employment and disclosed a structured scheme of inducement, deception and wrongful monetary gain, thereby prima facie attracting the offences alleged.

The Court held that the fact that the individual victims had not themselves approached the police did not erase the detailed allegations or prevent the police from investigating an alleged fraudulent enterprise affecting several members of the public.

The petitioners’ assertion that the FIR was a counterblast arising from a cheque-dishonour dispute raised a disputed factual defence that could not be conclusively adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

It held that the complaint and investigation materials disclosed, prima facie, a coordinated scheme involving alleged cheating, forgery, impersonation, conspiracy and intimidation, and that no ground existed to interdict the investigation at that stage.

The petition seeking quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings in Crime No. 103/2025 was accordingly dismissed.