1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.57846 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN

SMT.ARPITHA U.R.,

W/O RAVIKUMARA

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

PRINCIPAL, GANGOTHRI ITI COLLEGE

KHB COLONY, HOLENARASIPURA,

HASSAN DISTRICT

KARNATAKA PIN – 573 211.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH HOLENARASIPURA RURAL

POLICE STATION, HOLENARSIPURA TQ,

HASSAN DISTRICT

KARNATAKA BY ITS

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2.

SRI SYED AMANULLA

S/O LATE ABDULLA

PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL EXAM BOARD

GOVT. ITI HOLENARASIPURA

HASSAN DIST., PIN – 573 211.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP (PHYSICAL HEARING))

2

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1018/2015 PENDING

BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C

HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 109, R/W 34 OF IPC VIDE

ANNEXURE – A.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

proceedings in C.C.No.1018 of 2015 pending before the

Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Holenarasipura, Hassan for

offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 109 read with

Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri Suyog Herele.E., learned counsel for the

petitioner and Smt. B.G.Namitha Mahesh, learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the

materials on record.

3. Facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:-

3

The petitioner, at the relevant point in time, was working

as a Principal of Gangothri ITI College, Holenarasipura, Hassan

District. On

20-01-2014 at about 10 a.m. preparatory

examinations were conducted for students of both Government

and private ITI colleges at Holenarasipura Government ITI

College. During the course of examination, invigilator found that

accused Nos. 1 to 22 were the persons different from whom hall

tickets had been issued and on verification it was found that hall

tickets had been issued under the seal of the Principal.

4. Immediately, a complaint had been lodged before the

jurisdictional police by the invigilating officer and the said

complaint came to be registered in Crime No.15 of 2014 for

offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 109 read with

Section 34 of the IPC. Pursuant to an investigation being

conducted a charge sheet has also been filed against the

accused in C.C.No.1018 of 2015. The petitioner is accused No.23

in the said proceedings. It is these proceedings that are called in

question by the petitioner in the subject writ petition.

4

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

contend that no material is produced for initiation of

proceedings against the petitioner, as the petitioner was only a

Principal and at the time when the invigilating officer

apprehended accused 1 to 22 for impersonating the students for

whom hall tickets were issued, the Principal was out of station

and would contend that the offence under Sections 419 an 420

of the IPC cannot be alleged against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government

Pleader would contend that it is the Principal who has issued

hall tickets and she had to be present at the time when

examinations were being conducted as it was found that there

was complete variance with the persons to whom hall tickets

were issued and the persons who were writing the examination.

These are disputed questions of fact which can be brought out

only after a full-fledged trial in which the petitio