ORDER : This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) praying to quash the order dated 18.12.2017 in Crl.Rev.P.No.19/2017, passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur, by confirming the order dated 06.12.2016 passed in C.C.No.138/2016 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Manvi. 2. The factual matrix leading to the case are that, the petitioner had obtained a caste certificate claiming to be she belonging to ‘Mogera’ caste, which comes under the Schedule Caste and applied for the post of Primary School Teacher, in the year 19961997 and later on, she was appointed in Raichur District. She joined the duties and she is serving as a Teacher. In the meanwhile, certain complaints have been made to the Enforcement Authority, regarding the petitioner obtaining a false certificate making allegation that she doesn't belong to ‘Mogera’ community and she obtained a false certificate and obtained her employment under the reservation category. On the basis of this information, a complaint came to be lodged and the Investigating Officer after conducting investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section 198 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'). 3. The present petitioner in pursuance of summons issued to her appeared before the learned Magistrate and she was enlarged on bail. Thereafter, she filed an application for discharge and the learned Magistrate, by order dated 06.12.2016, discharged the petitioner from the alleged charges. 4. The said order is being challenged by the prosecution before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur in Crl.R.P.No.19/2017, by filing the petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the revision preferred by the State under Sections 397 and 399 of Cr.P.C and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate, discharging the present petitioner vide order dated 06.12.2016 in C.C.No.138/2016. 5. The order of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur is being challenged in this petition by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations made against the petitioner are malafide and ill-motivated. That the petitioner had applied to the post of Teacher in 19961997 and she was selected under General category. 5. The order of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur is being challenged in this petition by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations made against the petitioner are malafide and ill-motivated. That the petitioner had applied to the post of Teacher in 19961997 and she was selected under General category. He further contended that she never misrepresented for the said post and she was appointed under General category and as such, there is no question of cheating the Scheduled Caste people or Government, by using her false caste certificate. The records does establish that though she belongs to a different caste. She has applied for the post in General merit category and was selected and hence, question of cheating doesn't arise at all. That petitioner is in service since, 1996-1997 and she has again subjected to harassment and there is no prima facie material against her and hence, it is sought for allowing the petition by setting aside the order of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Raichur by restoring the order of the learned Magistrate. 7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader has specifically asserted that the petitioner with ill-motive has obtained a caste certificate of ‘Mogera’ caste though she does not belongs to said caste and she belongs to ‘Baandevesta’ caste, which doesn’t fall under Scheduled Caste category. He asserted that though she was selected under General merit, she has applied under Schedule Caste category and she would have taken the benefit of the caste throughout her service and it is evident from her conduct and her intention can be inferred. Hence, he contended that the matter requires a detail consideration and sought for rejection of the petition. 8. Having heard the arguments and on perusing the records, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner belongs to ‘Baandeveste’ caste. It is also an undisputed fact that she did obtained a caste certificate of ‘Mogera’ caste. Admittedly, ‘Baandeveste’ caste doesn’t fall under Scheduled Caste, while ‘Mogera’ Caste falls under Scheduled Caste category. 9. It is further an undisputed fact that the petitioner applied for the post of Primary School Teacher in 1996-1997. It is also an undisputed fact that she did obtained a caste certificate of ‘Mogera’ caste. Admittedly, ‘Baandeveste’ caste doesn’t fall under Scheduled Caste, while ‘Mogera’ Caste falls under Scheduled Caste category. 9. It is further an undisputed fact that the petitioner applied for the post of Primary School Teacher in 1996-1997. Though, all along, it is contended that she has applied for the post of Teacher in General Category, the records produced by the petitioner in the form of final eligible candidates for selection of primary school teachers list clearly disclose that her name appears at Sl.No.380 and she has applied in Scheduled Category but she was selected in General Merit category. Hence, this fact is evident that the petitioner has sought her employment under reserve category only. However, looking to her merits, she was selected in General Category. When the petitioner doesn’t belong to ‘Mogera’ caste, she could not have applied in Scheduled Caste category by producing the said caste certificate, which doesn’t belong to her caste. The issue regarding whether she has applied and secured the caste certificate for the purpose of this employment or it was obtained by her parents and what was the declaration is made etc., are required to be tested during the full fledged trial itself and whether the petitioner had an intention to seek employment only in Scheduled Caste category under the particular caste is also required to be ascertained during detail enquiry. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are not attracted since no property is involved in the instant case and the allegations are only in respect of production of caste certificate. Section 420 of IPC dealing with cheating, reads as under :- “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” 11. Section 420 of IPC is pertaining to cheating and the definition of cheating is given in Section 415 of IPC. Section 420 of IPC is pertaining to cheating and the definition of cheating is given in Section 415 of IPC. The definition includes deception and explanation to Section 415 of IPC disclose that a dishonest concealment of fact is a deception within the meaning of Section 415 of IPC. 12. Further, Section 420 of IPC also specifies, that if the cheating which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, it amounts to offence under Section 420 of IPC. Hence, the argument that ingredients of Section 420 of IPC are not attracted, cannot be accepted at this juncture. Prima facie, there is material at this stage to frame charges and proof of charges cannot be considered at the time of framing the charges. 13. Apart from that, Section 198 of IPC is also incorporated, which defines as under :- “198. Using as true a certificate known to be false.—Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence” 14. In the instant case, the allegations are that the petitioner having knowledge that she doesn’t belong to ‘Mogera’ caste, has obtained a caste certificate of ‘Mogera’, which is of Scheduled caste and applied for the post under Scheduled caste. Hence, prima facie the intention of the petitioner can be gathered and further though she was selected under General category she would have got the benefit of reservation category throughout her service in the form of increment and promotion. 15. Hence, at this juncture, considering these aspects, question of quashing the proceedings does not arise at all. Had the petitioner directly applied under General category, things would have been different, but she has applied under reserve category with a certificate pertaining to reserve category, to which she doesn’t belonged, but was selected under General category. 16. Under these circumstances the matter requires detail trial and the petitioner during the course of trial can place material that she had no intention to cheat or the caste certificate obtained well prior to applying the this post. 17. 16. Under these circumstances the matter requires detail trial and the petitioner during the course of trial can place material that she had no intention to cheat or the caste certificate obtained well prior to applying the this post. 17. Further, it is also necessary to consider as to what was the application submitted, who has submitted an application for issuing the caste certificate, what are the contents of the application, whether the earlier caste certificate was issued in favour of the parents of the petitioner are required to be verified and then only the intention of the petitioner, whether she had intention to cheat or not can be tested and this requires a detail trial. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision reported in [2019] ACR 331 Supreme Court of India [Prof.R.K. Vijayasarathy and another v. Sudha Seetharam and another], wherein in paragraph 10, the Apex Court has dealt with power of the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings in order to avoid abuse of process of law. But, when prima facie there is sufficient material evidence placed on record, there is no question of abuse of process of law. On the contrary the decision of Full Bench of the Apex Court in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 1918 [M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Maharashtra and others] has clearly held that the quashing of proceedings at the initial stage should be in rarest of rear cases. Under these circumstances, the principle enunciated in the decision reported in the case of Prof.R.K. Vijayasarathy (supra), cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, at this juncture, petition is not maintainable and the proceedings cannot be quashed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge in this regard is just and proper and the learned Magistrate has superficially considered only the fact that she was not selected under reserved category and she was only selected under General category, and proceeded to discharge her from duty, which was unwarranted. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly set-aside the order of learned Magistrate. Hence, the petition needs to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER : The petition is rejected. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly set-aside the order of learned Magistrate. Hence, the petition needs to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : ORDER : The petition is rejected. However, the learned Magistrate without being influenced by the observations made in this case, shall proceed to decide the entire case on its own merit on available records produced by the prosecution.