Introduction:
The Karnataka High Court, in Suma S. Sahukar v. State of Karnataka (Crl. P. No. 10292/2026), made strong oral observations while hearing a petition seeking quashing of an FIR registered against a candidate accused of obtaining reservation benefits on the basis of an allegedly false income certificate. The matter came before the Single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna.
The petitioner, daughter of the former Chairman of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), had applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Industries and Commerce under Category 3B, an Other Backward Classes (OBC) category that provides reservation to eligible candidates belonging to specified communities whose annual family income does not exceed ₹8 lakh. According to the prosecution, the petitioner declared her family’s annual income as ₹40,000, although her father, while serving as KPSC Chairman, was drawing a monthly salary of approximately ₹2.25 lakh. Based on the complaint lodged by the Assistant Secretary of the KPSC, an FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 336(2), 336(3), and 340(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) alleging that she had secured reservation by using a false income certificate.
The petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, contending that the criminal proceedings were initiated without complying with the procedure prescribed under Rule 7A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, Etc.) Rules, 1992. The case raised important questions regarding the misuse of reservation benefits, the requirement of verification before initiating criminal proceedings, and the scope of judicial intervention at the investigation stage.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner argued that the registration of the FIR was premature and contrary to Rule 7A of the 1992 Rules, which contemplates verification by the District Caste and Income Verification Committee before action is taken regarding caste or income certificates. It was submitted that without such verification, the complaint itself was legally unsustainable.
The petitioner further contended that she had disclosed only her personal income and not the income of her family. According to her, there was no deliberate intention to secure reservation by fraud, and she believed that the recruitment application required disclosure only of her individual earnings. It was also argued that the final selection list for the recruitment had not yet been published and, therefore, no candidate had actually been deprived of appointment. On this basis, it was submitted that no criminal offence was made out and the FIR deserved to be quashed.
The State opposed the petition, relying upon the allegations contained in the complaint filed by the Assistant Secretary of the Karnataka Public Service Commission. It was alleged that the petitioner had knowingly claimed reservation under Category 3B by producing an income certificate showing the annual family income as only ₹40,000 despite the fact that her father was earning approximately ₹25 lakh to ₹30 lakh annually as Chairman of the KPSC. According to the prosecution, the false declaration enabled the petitioner to compete under a reserved category meant for economically eligible candidates, thereby depriving genuinely deserving candidates of an opportunity. The State maintained that the investigation should be allowed to proceed and that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Court’s Judgment:
During the hearing, Justice M. Nagaprasanna made a series of strong oral observations questioning the petitioner’s conduct. The Court observed that reservation is intended to benefit genuinely eligible candidates and that a person who claims reservation on the basis of an incorrect income declaration effectively deprives a deserving candidate of a fair opportunity in public employment.
The Court orally remarked that a candidate whose actual family income is only ₹40,000 annually could have legitimately competed under Category 3B, but by allegedly making a false declaration, the petitioner had taken away that opportunity. The Court questioned whether such conduct amounted to depriving a poor and eligible candidate of a valuable constitutional benefit.
Rejecting the argument that Rule 7A required a prior verification before registration of the FIR, the Court observed that such a procedure becomes relevant where there is ambiguity regarding the correctness of the certificate. In the present case, the Court noted that the allegations, if accepted, disclosed an apparent discrepancy between the declared family income and the publicly known salary of the petitioner’s father. The Court orally observed that where the alleged fraud is evident on the face of the record, insisting upon a preliminary enquiry before investigation would unnecessarily delay the criminal process.
The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the petitioner’s explanation that only her personal income had been disclosed. It questioned how a candidate aspiring for government service could misunderstand the requirement relating to family income while claiming reservation under an income-based category. The Court further observed that whether the recruitment list was provisional or final was not the real issue; rather, the allegation concerned the very act of participating under a reserved category on the basis of an allegedly incorrect income declaration.
Justice Nagaprasanna repeatedly emphasised that reservation policies are designed to ensure equal opportunities for socially and economically eligible candidates. Any attempt to obtain such benefits through false information strikes at the fairness and integrity of the recruitment process. The Court orally described the allegations as appearing to disclose an “open and shut” case warranting investigation rather than judicial interference at the threshold.
Faced with the Court’s repeated queries and observations, the petitioner’s counsel ultimately sought permission to withdraw the petition. Accepting the request, the High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court again after the investigating agency files its final report.
The Court therefore did not adjudicate the merits of the criminal allegations or pronounce upon the petitioner’s guilt. Instead, by permitting withdrawal of the petition, it allowed the investigation to continue in accordance with law. The earlier order granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner by the trial court remains unaffected, and the investigating agency will now complete its investigation and file its final report before the competent court.
The proceedings underscore the judiciary’s concern over the alleged misuse of reservation benefits in public employment. The oral observations indicate that courts are likely to adopt a strict approach where allegations suggest that false income declarations have been used to obtain benefits meant for genuinely eligible candidates. At the same time, the final determination regarding the petitioner’s criminal liability will depend upon the evidence collected during investigation and the findings of the competent court.