The deliberate suppression of information to secure employment constitutes cheating under Section 420 of the IPC, emphasizing the importance of fraudulent intention and deliberate deception in establishing the offence of cheating.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.14766 of 2021 pending before the XXXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru arising out of crime in Crime No.1 of 2021 registered for offence under Section 420 of the IPC.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief germane are as follows:-

The petitioner avers that he is a practicing Advocate having got himself enrolled at the Karnataka State Bar Council on 15-09-2006 and his principal place of practice being Coorg at the relevant point in time, when the petitioner had practice of 13 years, the High Court of Karnataka, issues a notification inviting applications for the posts of District Judges on 21-10-2019. The petitioner finding himself eligible, applies for the post of District Judge, appears in the preliminary examination, clears the same and between 15-02-2020 and 16-02-2020 the final examinations were conducted for the said post. The petitioner cleared the final examination as well, and was called for a viva-voce. The petitioner emerged successful even in the viva voce and a final select list was notified by the High Court on 14-08-2020. The petitioner was one amongst the three candidates in the select list, who were recommended for appointment to the post of District Judges.

3. After the notification of the select list, an anonymous complaint reaches the High Court which results in a show cause notice being issued to the petitioner alleging that he has suppressed or tendered false information while submitting the application qua the cases pending against him and directs to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him. The petitioner submits two separate explanations on 28-10-2020 and 18-11-2020. The petitioner then was given a personal hearing before the Committee and the Committee resolved to terminate the candidature of the petitioner and further to register a criminal case against the petitioner for having furnished false information or suppressed relevant information.

4. This results a complaint being registered and the complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.1 of 2021 for offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. This was called in question by the petitioner before this Court in Criminal Petition No.959 of 2021. During the pendency of the said criminal petition charge sheet comes to be filed by the jurisdictional police on completion of investigation. It is then the criminal petition aforesaid was withdrawn reserving liberty to call in question the charge sheet. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. It then leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.14766 of 2021.

5. Heard Sri K.N. Phanindra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S.S. Nagananda, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

6. The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner would seek to contend that no doubt criminal cases were pending against him. But, as on the date of the notification and appearance before the Selection Committee for viva voce, no criminal case was pending against him, as all of them had ended in acquittal or settled before the Lok Adalat. Out of the list of criminal cases that the show cause notice mentions, four of them were registered by the petitioner himself. Therefore, he was a complainant in all those cases and not the accused. Since no case was pending against him as on the date of the notification, he misread the condition in the application thinking that if there were any cases pending against him he had to answer in the affirmative and accordingly he has answered it. Nonetheless he would admit, yes it is a mistake and a human error. The learned senior counsel would further contend that this by no stretch of imaginati