The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a senior oncologist who faced allegations that an experience certificate submitted during employment verification bore a forged signature. Holding that the allegations, even if accepted at face value, failed to disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, the Court observed that criminal law cannot be invoked to settle institutional grievances or personal animosity.
Background of the Case
The petitioner had served a private hospital for nearly 19 years in various leadership positions before resigning in 2022 to accept a senior role at another healthcare institution. Later, during a routine background verification conducted through a third-party agency, the petitioner's former employer alleged that the signature appearing on an experience certificate sent for verification was not genuine.
Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered under Sections 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police filed a 'B' report stating that no material existed to prosecute the doctor. However, the trial court rejected the closure report, took cognizance of the offences, and issued summons, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Court's Observations
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the surrounding circumstances did not justify continuation of the criminal proceedings. The Court noted that the petitioner had served the complainant institution for nearly two decades in senior positions and that his professional experience was never in dispute.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
The Court observed,
“The allegation is not that the petitioner has fabricated the experience certificate; rather the grievance is confined to the alleged forgery of a signature on a document certifying his experience that was otherwise unquestionable.”
The bench observed that the allegation was confined to the alleged forgery of a signature on a document certifying the petitioner's experience, even though his nearly two decades of service at the institution were undisputed. The Court noted that compelling him to face a criminal trial in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of the criminal process.
Another significant aspect considered by the Court was the reliance placed on a report from a private forensic laboratory. The Court held that such a report could not, by itself, form the basis for taking cognizance, observing that forensic examination should be carried out by an authorised government forensic laboratory.
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the High Court said the case fell within the category where criminal proceedings deserve to be quashed because the allegations appeared inherently improbable and did not disclose a criminal offence.
The bench further observed,
“Criminal law cannot be permitted to become an instrument for the vindication of institutional displeasure or personal animosity.”
Court's Decision
Allowing the criminal petition, the Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings pending before the trial court arising out of Crime No. 277 of 2022. The Court held that the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, did not disclose the commission of the alleged offences and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the criminal process.
While observing that the facts could have warranted consideration of malicious prosecution, the Court consciously refrained from examining that issue and left it open.
Case Details
Case Title: Dr. Somashekar S.P. v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 10480 of 2025
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: July 2, 2026
-300x169.webp)
