The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings against a Police Sub-Inspector (PSI) accused of fabricating vaccination records to alter his date of birth, allegedly so that he could become eligible for recruitment to the police post [Kashilingegowda S B v. State of Karnataka].
Justice Suraj Govindaraj on October 13 dismissed a petition filed by PSI Kashilingegowda SB.
The Court held that a civil court decree directing the correction of the cop's date of birth could not, by itself, prevent an investigation into allegations that the documents relied upon by him to obtain the decree were fabricated.
It, therefore, rejected PSI Kashilingegowda's plea to quash the forgery case and ordered that the investigation into the matter be completed promptly.
The case was registered by the Vidhana Soudha Police in December 2024 for offences under Sections 198 (using a certificate known to be false as a true certificate), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 465 (punishment for forgery), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) and 471 (using a forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The matter involves allegations that Kashilingegowda had fabricated entries in a register relating to the administration of vaccinations and altered his date of birth from April 15, 1988, to April 15, 1987, so that he could become eligible to participate in the PSI recruitment process.
Before the High Court, Kashilingegowda contended that the correction of his date of birth had been carried out pursuant to a decree passed by a competent civil court.
He also relied on a July 2025 order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which had allowed his challenge to disciplinary proceedings initiated in the matter. The tribunal had held that the civil court decree could not be disregarded as void unless it was set aside by a competent forum.
Kashilingegowda argued that criminal proceedings concerning the same alteration could not be sustained while the civil court decree remained in force.
The complainant's counsel countered that the alleged fabrication of documents formed the very basis of the civil court decree. He argued that the continued existence of the decree, therefore, could not prevent the police from investigating the forgery allegations.
The High Court noted that the civil court had directed the correction of Kashilingegowda's date of birth in his school records and marks cards on the basis of the allegedly forged vaccination document.
“The very documents on the basis of which the decree came to be passed are alleged to be fabricated,” the Court observed.
It, therefore, held that the existence of the civil court decree could not operate as an absolute bar to an investigation into the alleged fabrication of the vaccination document.
It emphasised that the validity of the civil court decree and the question of whether the allegations of forgery and cheating warranted a criminal investigation were distinct issues.
The Court further noted that the allegations assumed significance because the alteration of the date of birth was stated to have enabled Kashilingegowda to claim eligibility for recruitment as a PSI.
“Whether the documents were in fact fabricated, whether the petitioner was involved in any such fabrication, and whether the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out are matters to be ascertained in the course of investigation,” the Court added before dismissing the cop's plea.
Advocate K N Narayanaswamy appeared for the petitioner (Kashilingegowda).
High Court Government Pleader Rashmi Patel represented the State and advocate Phaniraj Kashyap appeared for the complainant.
[Read Judgment]