The Karnataka High Court has declined to halt criminal proceedings against a Police Sub-Inspector accused of allegedly fabricating vaccination records to change his date of birth and qualify for police recruitment.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a petition filed by Kashilingegowda SB in Kashilingegowda S B v. State of Karnataka, ruling that a civil court order permitting a change in birth date could not automatically shield him from an investigation into the alleged fabrication of documents used to secure that order.
The Court also directed that the investigation be completed without unnecessary delay.
Dispute centres on vaccination register
The case stems from allegations that Kashilingegowda manipulated entries in a vaccination register to change his date of birth from April 15, 1988, to April 15, 1987. The alleged alteration was intended to make him eligible for recruitment as a Police Sub-Inspector.
Vidhana Soudha Police registered a criminal case in December 2024, invoking provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to the use of false certificates, cheating, forgery and the use of forged documents as genuine.
Kashilingegowda approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings, arguing that his revised date of birth had been recognised through a decree issued by a competent civil court.
That decree had directed corrections to his school records and marks cards.
He also relied on a July 2025 order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which had ruled in his favour in a challenge to disciplinary proceedings. The tribunal had observed that the civil court decree could not simply be treated as void without being set aside by a competent forum.
On that basis, Kashilingegowda argued that criminal proceedings concerning the same change in date of birth could not continue while the civil court’s order remained in force.
Civil court decree does not end the criminal inquiry
The complainant opposed the petition, maintaining that the alleged fabrication of the vaccination document lay at the heart of the civil court proceedings themselves. The existence of the decree, therefore, could not prevent the police from examining whether the document relied upon to obtain it was genuine.
The High Court accepted that distinction, observing that the civil court had ordered the correction of the birth date on the strength of a vaccination document that was now alleged to have been fabricated.
“The very documents on the basis of which the decree came to be passed are alleged to be fabricated,” the Court observed.
The Bench made clear that the legal effect of the civil court decree and the criminal allegations raised separate questions. While the decree remained relevant to the correction of the officer’s records, it did not automatically foreclose an investigation into suspected forgery or cheating.
The allegations also warranted scrutiny because the revised birth date was said to have helped the officer meet the eligibility requirements for recruitment.
Investigation must establish the facts
The Court refrained from deciding whether the vaccination records had actually been fabricated or whether Kashilingegowda had any role in the alleged wrongdoing. Those questions, it said, must be examined during the investigation, along with whether the alleged acts satisfy the requirements of the offences invoked.
“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 said.
With these observations, the High Court rejected the plea to quash the criminal case, leaving the investigation to proceed.
The ruling does not establish that the officer forged the records; it allows the authorities to investigate the allegations despite the existing civil court decree.