Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Accused Who Claimed To Be Congress Leaders In ₹5.30 Crores Government Job Fraud Case

The Court was hearing a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of an FIR registered by the CCB City Police, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 506, 34, 120B, 419, 406, 504, 471, 468, 465 and 420 IPC.

A Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while declining to interdict the investigation at the nascent stage, observed: “It is a classic case of fake in uno fake in omnibus, as the allegations portray an edifice allegedly built entirely upon fabrication and falsehood.”

Senior Advocate M.T. Nanaiah appeared for the petitioners, while SPP-I B.N. Jagadeesha appeared for the State.

Background

The complaint alleged that the petitioners claimed to be leaders of the Congress Party and represented that they could secure jobs in various Government departments. According to the Court’s narration of the complaint, several persons allegedly made payments after being assured that they would receive jobs and appointment orders.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioners created an email ID for a limited period, secured the presence of persons who had paid money for training in places such as Kolkata and other locations, and issued fake appointment-related material. The alleged beneficiaries later came to know of the foul play and began demanding return of money.

The petitioners contended that none of the persons allegedly cheated had lodged the complaint. They argued that the complainant had no transaction concerning the alleged job promise and that the FIR was filed only to wreak vengeance or as a counterblast to proceedings initiated by them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioners had allegedly run a cartel involving fake appointment orders, fake email IDs, fake Government departments and fake training centres. It was submitted that investigation papers disclosed receipt of ₹5.30 crore from members of the public who were allegedly hoodwinked in the desire of securing jobs in Government departments.

Court’s Observations

The Court first examined the contents of the complaint and held that it could not be treated as a vague or omnibus narration. It noted that the complaint gave details of the alleged manner in which money was collected from several aspirants.

The Court observed: “The complaint, on a prima facie reading, is not a bald recital of vague or omnibus allegations. It unfolds, with considerable detail, the entire modus operandi allegedly employed by the petitioners. The narrative commences with the receipt of ₹25,00,000/- from seven aspirants, followed by collections from three more persons and, thereafter, eight others. The investigation, at this stage, indicates that the cumulative online transfers made by several unsuspecting individuals to the petitioners aggregate to an astounding ₹5,30,00,000/-.”

The Court further recorded that the payments were allegedly made in the hope of obtaining Government employment, on the assurance that appointments in various departments were within the reach of the accused.

The Court held that the case, as pleaded in the complaint, did not rest only on receipt of money followed by failure to provide employment. It noted that the allegations described a larger design meant to give credibility to the alleged deception.

The Court stated: “Had the allegations rested merely on the receipt of money coupled with an unfulfilled promise of employment, the matter may have presented an altogether different complexion. The complaint, however, travels far beyond a mere allegation of inducement. It portrays a meticulously choreographed design intended to lend an aura of authenticity to the deception.”

The Court noted that the petitioners were alleged to have created fictitious email IDs, fabricated appointment orders, invented non-existent Government establishments and projected sham places of employment. The order further recorded that aspirants were allegedly sent to Kolkata and Maharashtra for purported training programmes based on fabricated appointment letters and non-existent recruitment processes.

The Court also dealt with the petitioners’ argument that none of the persons who had allegedly paid money had themselves approached the police. It held that this factor, by itself, did not wipe out the allegations in the complaint.

The Court observed: “It is no doubt true that none of the persons who are alleged to have parted with their hard-earned money have themselves approached the police. Yet, that circumstance, by itself, neither effaces the allegations nor eclipses the detailed narration contained in the complaint.”

The Court added that the prosecution case did not rest only on the complainant’s identity, but on the alleged fraudulent enterprise and the specific manner in which job aspirants were allegedly induced.

The Court characterised the allegations as disclosing a scheme allegedly designed to exploit the aspirations of unemployed youth. It found no reason to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to stop the investigation at that stage.

The Court remarked: “The facts, as they presently emerge from the record, read less like an ordinary criminal complaint and more like the script of a classic potboiler, where every succeeding act unveils a deeper layer of calculated deception. The allegations, if ultimately established, disclose not an isolated act of cheating but a carefully engineered scheme designed to prey upon the aspirations of unemployed youth, exploiting their hope of securing Government employment for unlawful pecuniary gain.”

The Court held that it could not extend its protective umbrella to persons facing allegations of fabricated appointment orders, fictitious email IDs, sham training centres and non-existent Government departments, all allegedly meant to dupe citizens.

Conclusion

The High Court found no ground to quash the FIR or stop the investigation at the preliminary stage. It dismissed the petition and allowed the investigation into the alleged job-for-money cheating case to proceed.

Cause Title: Kumari Shamshad Begum And Another v. State Of Karnataka And Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:36330)

Appearances

Petitioners: Senior Advocate M.T. Nanaiah with Advocate Rachitha Nanaiah M.

Respondent: B.N. Jagadeesha, SPP-I for State

Click here to read/download Judgment