“Classic Potboiler”: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Father-Daughter Duo In ₹5.3-Crore Fake Jobs Racket

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (July 16) refused to quash an FIR registered against a father-daughter duo accused of orchestrating a ₹5.3-crore fake government jobs racket, observing that the allegations disclosed a “classic potboiler” in which naïve and gullible job aspirants were duped with forged appointment orders and false promises of employment in government departments.

Dismissing the criminal petition filed by Kumari Shamshad Begum and her father M.A. Mansoor Ahmed, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the Court would not extend its “protective hands” to persons accused of hoodwinking unsuspecting candidates by issuing fake appointment orders.

“...The facts as narrated hereinabove represent the facts obtaining in a classic potboiler. This Court would not extend its protective hands to these petitioners who have hoodwinked naïve, gullible people with fake appointment orders to departments of governments... It is a case of fake in uno, fake in omnibus. Petition is dismissed,” the Court held.

The FIR, registered by the CCB City Police, Bengaluru, alleges that the petitioners cheated job aspirants of ₹5.30 crore by promising appointments in various government departments, including the Railways, Income Tax Department, Irrigation, Health and Social Welfare departments.

According to the prosecution, the petitioners, who allegedly projected themselves as Congress leaders, targeted villagers seeking government employment and induced them to part with large sums of money on the promise of securing government jobs.

Senior Counsel M.T. Nanaiah, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the complaint was motivated by malice and had been filed by a person seeking to settle scores over a separate cheque-bounce dispute involving ₹1.25 crore. It was further contended that none of the alleged victims had themselves approached the police and that the complainant had no direct connection with the alleged recruitment scam.

Opposing the plea, State Public Prosecutor B.N. Jagadeesha equated the alleged modus operandi to that depicted in the Bollywood film Special 26, submitting that the accused had run an elaborate operation spanning multiple States.

“People have been asked to come to Kolkata, a camp is organised, and people are sent to work in railway stations. Appointments are issued, and now people have worked in railway stations too,” the SPP submitted.

The Court noted that the investigation had revealed an intricate scheme under which the petitioners allegedly collected ₹25 lakh from an initial batch of candidates and later received online payments amounting to ₹5.30 crore from several others.

The order records that, after receiving money from candidates, the petitioners allegedly created fake email IDs, generated forged appointment orders and fabricated places of employment. Victims were then sent to Kolkata and Maharashtra for training in furtherance of the purported appointments.

“...Upon receipt of ₹25 lakhs from seven people at the outset, three later and again eight later and put together online payments are made to these petitioners to the tune of ₹5.30 crores... In furtherance of getting jobs, the petitioners create fake email IDs, generate fake appointment orders, generate fake places of employment of all these persons... they are made to go to Calcutta and Maharashtra for training all on account of allegedly fake appointment orders... the fulcrum of the complaint... completely narrates the modus operandi of these persons,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted that, according to the investigation, several persons had acted upon the appointment orders and even worked at the places indicated therein before eventually discovering that they had been deceived, although none of them had independently lodged complaints.

The petitioners had sought quashing of the FIR registered for offences under Sections 506 (criminal intimidation), 34 (acts done in furtherance of common intention), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 419 (cheating by personation), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 471 (forgery), 468 (forgery for cheating), 465 (punishment for forgery) and 420 (cheating) IPC.

Finding that the allegations and the material collected during the investigation disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioners, the Court dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Kumari Shamshad Begum & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: CRL.P 9571/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 251