Karnataka High Court refuses to quash case against couple accused of cheating job aspirants in alleged multi-crore railway recruitment scam

Respondent No. 2’s complaint led to registration of Crime No. 557/2015 and, following investigation, a charge sheet against the petitioners and others.

The allegations were that the accused had conducted mock interviews and collected money from job aspirants by promising them railway employment; the investigation included witness statements, a spot mahazar and documentary material.

The petitioners, arrayed as accused Nos. 2 and 6 in C.C. No. 314/2017, sought to quash the FIR and charge sheet, contending that the materials did not disclose their involvement and that the allegations were improbable.

The petition against respondent No. 2 had earlier been dismissed for failure to take steps; the State opposed quashing.

1. Whether the FIR and charge sheet should be quashed against the petitioners on the ground that the materials did not disclose their involvement in the alleged offences

2. Whether the Court could assess the petitioners’ innocence or the likelihood of conviction at the quashing stage

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In considering a request to quash criminal proceedings, the Court should determine whether the record discloses a prima facie basis to proceed; it should not conduct a mini-trial to decide whether the accused are innocent or whether conviction is likely.

The Court found that statements of the aspirants, documentary evidence, the investigation materials and statements attributed to the petitioners and co-accused prima facie indicated the petitioners’ involvement.

It declined to resolve the petitioners’ challenges to the credibility or probability of the allegations, holding that doing so would amount to a mini-trial.

The alleged repayment cheque for ₹14,00,000 was also treated as a significant factor at this stage.

It clarified that its observations would not prejudice the petitioners’ right to raise any available defence in accordance with law.