Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 11598
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
RIYAZ AHAMED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 3777 / 2025
Cognizance of offences under IPC is taken based on available evidence; the court found prima facie evidence of cheating under Section 420, restricting charges accordingly.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 415, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 - Cognizance of offences - The petitioner sought to quash proceedings for offences under multiple sections of IPC, arguing non-application of mind by the Magistrate in taking cognizance. The court found prima facie evidence of cheating under Section 420, allowing the petition in part and restricting charges accordingly. (Paras 10, 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Taking cognizance - Cognizance is taken of the offence, not the offender. The court emphasized that the order should reflect consideration of relevant material and should not lead to a failure of justice. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner allegedly promised the complainant a post in the Karnataka Public Service Commission for a sum of `1.8 crores, which was not fulfilled, leading to charges of fraud. The transaction and subsequent complaint were detailed, prompting investigation and charge sheet filing.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner is to be tried solely for the offence under Section 420 IPC, with no evidence against him for other sections.
Issues: The main issue was whether the order of taking cognizance was flawed due to non-application of mind regarding the individual offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s actions constituted prima facie cheating under Section 420 IPC, affirming the principle that cognizance pertains to the offence itself.
Result: The criminal petition is allowed-in-part.
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.39271 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 465 , 467, 468 , 471 , 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC .
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Rohan S., appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
It is the case of the prosecution that, the petitioner claiming to be close to the powers that be in the Karnataka Public Service Commission and also the State, meets the complainant. The petitioner is said to have assured the complainant that he would get him the post of a Member in the Karnataka Public Service Commission for a price. Pursuant to the understanding between the two, a transaction of `1.8 crores happens between the two. The complainant did not become the Member of the Commission, but she seeks to register a complaint against the petitioner for having defrauded her, in luring her in the hope of becoming a Member of the Commission. The complaint becomes a crime in crime No.3/2024 for the offences under Sections 149, 420, 465, 467 , 471 and 468 of the IPC .
4. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences and issues summons to all the accused. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. Filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance of the offences has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would seek to project that the offence under Section 406 of the IPC will not get attracted in the case at hand. It is his further submission that the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offences suffers from blatant non-application of mind, as the cognizance order is a composite order qua accused Nos.1 to 9 and not the individual offences or overt acts against each of the accused. He would submit that none of the offences to which cognizance is taken would get attracted in the case at hand qua the petitioner. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri. B.N.Jagadeesha, would take this Court through the order of taking of cognizance to contend that the learned Magistrate has not taken cognizance for Section 406 of the IPC against anybody. The cognizance for which the offences are taken is as quoted hereinabove. It is for Sections 149, 420, 465, 467 , 468 and 471 of the IPC . The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that offence under Section 420 of the IPC is completely attracted in the case at hand.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The complainant is said to have befriended with accused No.1 – petitioner. Petitioner projects himself to be very close to the political circles and has the capacity of getting the complainant a post of the Member in the Commission and towards the said assurance, it transpires that a transaction of `1.8 crores takes place. While there is some dispute with regard to the quantum, nonetheless, transaction of few lakhs take place. The complainant does not become a Member. Hope of the complainant vanishes in thin air. The complaint is then registered. The complaint runs into nine pages. Vivid details of modus operandi is narrated in the complaint. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.3/2024, for the afore-quoted offences. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17, insofar as it concerns the petitioner, reads as follows:
(Emphasis added)
The charge sheet is filed for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B r/w. 34 of the IPC . On filing of the charge sheet, the
