The court dismissed the petition to quash proceedings as prima facie evidence established the accused's involvement in impersonating candidates for a competitive examination.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. Accused No.5 is before this Court under Section

528 of the BNSS 2023, with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.1257/2022 pending before the Court of JMFC-II, Belagavi, arising out of Crime No.43/2021 registered by Malamaruthi Police Station, Belagavi city for offences punishable under Sections 417 , 419, 465, 120B read with Sections 34 and 37 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner only for the offences punished under Sections 417 , 120B read with 37 of IPC. Except the confession statement of the co- accused, there is no other material collected against the petitioner. During the course of investigation, there is no recovery of any article in the present case from the possession of the petitioner. He accordingly prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP has strongly opposed the petition. She submits that petitioner has conspired and assisted accused Nos.1 and 2 for the purpose of committing the charge sheeted offences. Accused No.1 had impersonated accused No.2 in the written examination that was held to the post of Special Constable K.S.R.P. for men and women.

5. The allegations against the petitioner is that he was contacting candidates who were aspiring to become constables and after collecting money from them, he was arranging candidates to impersonate the actual candidates who were supposed to appear for the written examination. In the present case, petitioner had contacted accused No.1 and had offered him money and induced him to impersonate accused No.2 in the written examination that was held on 07.05.2020 for the post of Special Constable K.S.R.P.

6. CW25 who was one of the candidate has stated in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement that petitioner had contacted him and asked him to arrange for money for the purpose of arranging candidate to impersonate him in the written examination. He has also stated that subsequently petitioner had informed him that one of his candidates was caught while impersonating the actual candidate. During the course of investigation, police have recorded confession statement of the petitioner and the same corroborates with the other materials collected by the prosecution in the present case during the course of investigation.

7. Any act of a person done with an intention to make profit or to take advantage from another person by using deceitful means, can be considered as cheating. In the present case, petitioner had contacted accused No.1 and had offered him money and induced him to impersonate accused No.2 in the competitive written examination that was held to the responsible post of Special Constable, K.S.R.P.

8. The material on record would go to show that petitioner had contacted similar other candidates and had demanded money from them for the purpose of arranging other candidates to impersonate them in the written examination. Petitioner therefore was all along aware that his act would place another meritorious candidate in an unfair situation and therefore the offence of cheating as defined under Section 415 of Cr.P.C., which is punishable under Section 417 of Cr.P.C., clearly gets attracted against the petitioner.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, [(2024) 10 SCC 690] has held as follows:

“35. xxxxx

10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are: (i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so dec