Court Holds Civil Court Decree on Date of Birth Correction Does Not Bar Criminal Investigation into Alleged Fabrication of Vaccination Records
In a significant ruling dated October 13, 2026, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed by Sri Kashilingegowda S.B., who sought to quash an FIR registered against him for alleged forgery, cheating, and fabrication of records to alter his date of birth. The petitioner had challenged the FIR registered by Vidhana Soudha Police Station, which accused him of fabricating vaccination records to change his date of birth from April 15, 1988, to April 15, 1987, thus making him eligible for the post of Police Sub-Inspector.
The petitioner relied on a decree passed by a competent civil court in O.S. No. 255 of 2017, which directed correction of his date of birth in official school records. This decree was still subsisting, and the petitioner argued that criminal proceedings should not be initiated on the basis of the same alteration that was lawfully directed by the civil court. He also cited a Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal order which stayed disciplinary proceedings against him on the ground that the civil court decree must be respected unless set aside.
However, the High Court, presided over by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, rejected this contention. The Court emphasized that the civil decree itself was based on certain vaccination records and registers, which the FIR alleges were fabricated. Since the foundation of the civil decree is in question, it cannot operate as an absolute bar to criminal investigation. The Court referred to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector of Police (2002), which held that civil and criminal proceedings can run concurrently and one does not bar the other.
The Court clarified that whether the documents were fabricated, whether the petitioner was involved, and whether the offences under Sections 198 (false statement in declaration), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), and 471 (using forged documents) of the Indian Penal Code are made out, are issues to be determined after proper investigation.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition to quash the FIR and directed the investigating agency to complete the investigation expeditiously and submit the report at the earliest. The Court made it clear that no opinion was being expressed on the truth of the allegations or the guilt of the petitioner at this stage.
This judgment underlines the principle that a civil decree, even if subsisting, does not impede criminal investigations where there is an allegation that the documents underlying such decree were fabricated. It reiterates the independence of civil and criminal proceedings and upholds the necessity of investigation into allegations of forgery and cheating, especially where eligibility for a government post is allegedly obtained through fraudulent means.
Bottom Line:
Criminal proceedings for forgery, cheating and fabrication of records cannot be quashed merely because a civil court decree directing correction of date of birth is subsisting, when the very documents on the basis of which such decree was obtained are alleged to be fabricated.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 198, 420, 465, 468, 471; Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 482; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
Kashilingegowda S.B. v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3004142
