- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16471 CRL.P No. 3777 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3777 OF 2025 BETWEEN: RIYAZ AHAMED S/O G ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A 4/1, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, BUVANNAPPA LAYOUT, DRC POST, TAVAREKERE POST, BANGALORE - 560029 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHAN S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CCB PS, BANGALORE DISTRICT REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001 2. NILLAMMA M BELAMAGI, W/O MANTRAJATHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A: NO.5, KALE LAYOUT, BRAHMAPURA, S.P. TEMPLE ROAD, KALBURGI - 585103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 30.11.2024 IN C.C.NO.39217/2024 BY THE HONBLE I ADDL. CJM, BANGALORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC BASED ON THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT / CCB P.S AND ETC. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16471 CRL.P No. 3777 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16471 CRL.P No. 3777 of 2025 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16471 CRL.P No. 3777 of 2025 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16471 CRL.P No. 3777 of 2025 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: " ೋಾೋಪ ೆ, ಎ1- ಾ ಅಹಮ ೕನ ೋಾೋಪ ೆ, ೋಾೋಪ ೆ ಪಯ ನಮೂರುವ ಎl ಆೋ! ಾ ಅಹಮ ಈತನು ಇತೆ ಆೋ!ತಾದ ಎ2. ಎ3 'ಾಗೂ ಎ4 ರವೊಂ*ೆ +ೇ ಅಕ-ಮ ಹಣ ಸಂ0ಾದ1ೆ 2ಾಡುವ ಸ2ಾನ ಉೆ5ೕಶಂದ ನನ*ೆ ಹಲವ8 ಾಜ:ೕಯ ವ;:<ಗಳ ಪಚಯ?ೆ ಎಂದು ¦gÁå¢AiÀiÁzÀ +ಾ@- 1 ರವ*ೆ ಕ1ಾAಟಕ Cೋಕ+ೇDಾ ಆEೕಗದ ಸದಸ;ತF GೊHಸುIೆ<ೕ1ೆ ಎಂದು ನಂJ ವಂಚ1ೆ 2ಾH ಅಕ-ಮ ಹಣ ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É 2ಾಡುವ ಸ2ಾನ ಉೆ5ೕಶಂದ ಪ-ಕರಣದ ಎ2,ಎ3,ಎ4 ರವೊಂ*ೆ +ೇ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16471 CRL.P No. 3777 of 2025 +ಾ@- 1 ರವಂದ ರೂ 1,00,00,000/- ಹಣವನುK ??ಧ 1ಾಂಕಗಳ ಪMೆದು ಅದರ ಈ J¯Áè ಆೋ!ತರು ಹಂNGೊಂಡು ಆೋ!-1 ಈತನು ರೂ 5,00,000/- ಹಣವನುK, ಪMೆರುIಾ<1ೆ. 'ಾಗೂ +ಾ@-1 ರವ*ೆ ಆೋ!-1 ಈತನು ಪ-ಕರಣದ ಆೋ!-5 ಈತನನುK 'ಾಗೂ ಆೋ!-7 ಈತನು ಕರು1ಾಡ ರO ಾ ªÉ¢PÉAiÀÄ ಾPಾ;ಧ;O1ೆಂದು 'ಾಗೂ ಪ-ಕರಣದ ಆೋ!-5 ಈತನು ಕಳಸ IಾಲೂQ£À Gಾಂ*ೆ-ೕR ಯುವ ಮುಖಂಡ1ೆಂದು ಪಚT ಇವರುಗU*ೆ ಹಲವ8 ಾಜ:ೕಯ ವ;:<ಗಳV 'ಾಗೂ ಸGಾA ಉನKತ ಮಟದ ಅWGಾಯವರು ಪಚಯ?ರುIಾ<ೆ Xಮ*ೆ Gೆ.!.ಎR. ಯ ಸದಸ;ತF GೊHಸುIೆ<ೕDೆ ಇದGೆY ಹಣ ಖZಾAಗುತ<ೆಂದು 'ೇU ??ಧ 1ಾಂಕಗಳಂದ ಹಂತ ಹಂತDಾ[ \ೆಂಗಳ]ನ ??ಧ ಸ^ಳಗಳ +ಾ@-1 'ಾಗೂ +ಾ@-2 ರವಂದ ಅಂಾಜು ರೂ 1,80,00,000/- ನಗದು ಹಣ ಪMೆದು ಅದರ ರೂ 57,50,000/- ನಗದು ಹಣವನುK Iಾನು ಸFಂತGೆY ಬಳGೊಂಡು ಉUದ ಹಣವನುK ಇತೆ ಆೋ!ತ*ೆ XೕHರುIಾ<1ೆ. ನಂತರ ಎ1 ಆೋ!ಯು +ಾ@-1 ರವ*ೆ Gೆ!ಎR ಸದಸ;ತF GೊHಸುವ Gೆಲಸ ಪ-ಗ`ಯೆ Xಮ Gೆಲಸ ಆಗುತ<ೆ ಎಂದು ನಂJ ಇದGೆY ಹಲವ8 ವ;:<ಗU*ೆ ಹಣ Xೕಡ\ೇGಾ[ೆ ಎಂದು ನಂJ +ಾ@-1 'ಾಗೂ ಇವರ ಮಗaಾದ +ಾ@-2 'ಾಗೂ +ಾ@-1 ರವರ +ೆKೕbತರು ಮತು< ಸಂಬಂಕರ cಾIೆಗUಂದ ??ಧ 1ಾಂಕಗಳ ಎ1 ಆೋ!ಯ ತನK \ಾ;ಂQ cಾIೆಗU*ೆ ಅಂಾಜು ರೂ 60,00,000/- ಹಣವನುK ವ*ಾAವ ೆ 2ಾHGೊಂHರುIಾ<1ೆ. ಪ- ಪ- ಪ- ಪ-ಕರಣ ಕರಣ ಕರಣ ಕರಣ ಎಎಎಎ1 ಆೋ!ಯು ಆೋ!ಯು ಆೋ!ಯು ಆೋ!ಯು ಪ-ಕರಣದ ಪ-ಕರಣದ ಪ-ಕರಣದ ಪ-ಕರಣದ ಎಎಎಎ2, ಎಎಎಎ3, ಎಎಎಎ4, ಎಎಎಎ5555, ಎಎಎಎ6666 ºÁUÀÆ ಎಎಎಎ7777 ಆೋ!ತೊಂ*ೆ ಆೋ!ತೊಂ*ೆ ಆೋ!ತೊಂ*ೆ ಆೋ!ತೊಂ*ೆ +ೇ +ೇ +ೇ +ೇ ??ಧ ??ಧ ??ಧ ??ಧ 1ಾಂಕಗಳಂದು 1ಾಂಕಗಳಂದು 1ಾಂಕಗಳಂದು 1ಾಂಕಗಳಂದು +ಾ@ +ಾ@ +ಾ@ +ಾ@-1 g-ೕಮ` g-ೕಮ` g-ೕಮ` g-ೕಮ` Xೕಲಮ Xೕಲಮ Xೕಲಮ Xೕಲಮ. ಇವರ ಇವರ ಇವರ ಇವರ ಮಗaಾದ ಮಗaಾದ ಮಗaಾದ ಮಗaಾದ +ಾ@ +ಾ@ +ಾ@ +ಾ@- g-ೕಮ` g-ೕಮ` g-ೕಮ` g-ೕಮ` ಸುಾ ಸುಾ ಸುಾ ಸುಾ 'ಾಗೂ 'ಾಗೂ 'ಾಗೂ 'ಾಗೂ +ಾ@ +ಾ@ +ಾ@ +ಾ@-1 ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ +ೆKೕbತಂದ +ೆKೕbತಂದ +ೆKೕbತಂದ +ೆKೕbತಂದ \ೆಂಗಳ]ನ \ೆಂಗಳ]ನ \ೆಂಗಳ]ನ \ೆಂಗಳ]ನ ??ಧ ??ಧ ??ಧ ??ಧ ಸ^ಳಗಳ ಸ^ಳಗಳ ಸ^ಳಗಳ ಸ^ಳಗಳ ನಗಾ[ ನಗಾ[ ನಗಾ[ ನಗಾ[ 'ಾಗೂ 'ಾಗೂ 'ಾಗೂ 'ಾಗೂ ತನK ತನK ತನK ತನK ಅGೌಂi ಅGೌಂi ಅGೌಂi ಅGೌಂi*ೆ*ೆ*ೆ*ೆ ಒಟು ಒಟು ಒಟು ಒಟು ಅಂಾಜು ಅಂಾಜು ಅಂಾಜು ಅಂಾಜು ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ 1,22,50,000/- ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಪMೆದು ಪMೆದು ಪMೆದು ಪMೆದು ಅಕ-ಮ ಅಕ-ಮ ಅಕ-ಮ ಅಕ-ಮ Cಾಭ Cಾಭ Cಾಭ Cಾಭ 2ಾHGೊಂಡು 2ಾHGೊಂಡು 2ಾHGೊಂಡು 2ಾHGೊಂಡು +ಾ@ +ಾ@ +ಾ@ +ಾ@-1 ರವ*ೆ ರವ*ೆ ರವ*ೆ ರವ*ೆ ನಂJGೆ ನಂJGೆ ನಂJGೆ ನಂJGೆ ೊ-ೕಹ ೊ-ೕಹ ೊ-ೕಹ ೊ-ೕಹ 2ಾH 2ಾH 2ಾH 2ಾH ವಂಚ1ೆ ವಂಚ1ೆ ವಂಚ1ೆ ವಂಚ1ೆ 2ಾHರುವ8ದು 2ಾHರುವ8ದು 2ಾHರುವ8ದು 2ಾHರುವ8ದು ತXcಾ ತXcಾ ತXcಾ ತXcಾ Gಾಲದ Gಾಲದ Gಾಲದ Gಾಲದ ಸಂಗ-bದ ಸಂಗ-bದ ಸಂಗ-bದ ಸಂಗ-bದ ಾಖCಾ`ಗUಂದ ಾಖCಾ`ಗUಂದ ಾಖCಾ`ಗUಂದ ಾಖCಾ`ಗUಂದ 'ಾಗೂ 'ಾಗೂ 'ಾಗೂ 'ಾಗೂ +ಾ@ಾರರ +ಾ@ಾರರ +ಾ@ಾರರ +ಾ@ಾರರ 'ೇUGೆಗUಂದ 'ೇUGೆಗUಂದ 'ೇUGೆಗUಂದ 'ೇUGೆಗUಂದ ದೃಢಪರುತ<ೆ ದೃಢಪರುತ<ೆ ದೃಢಪರುತ<ೆ ದೃಢಪರುತ<ೆ. ಆದ5ಂದ ಆದ5ಂದ ಆದ5ಂದ ಆದ5ಂದ ಆೋ!ಯ ಆೋ!ಯ ಆೋ!ಯ ಆೋ!ಯ ?ರುದn ?ರುದn ?ರುದn ?ರುದn ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ ಕಲಂ 420, 406, 120(JJJJ) ಸbತ ಸbತ ಸbತ ಸbತ 34 ಐಐಐಐ.!!!!. ೕIಾ; ೕIಾ; ೕIಾ; ೕIಾ; ೋಾೋಪ ೆ ೋಾೋಪ ೆ ೋಾೋಪ ೆ ೋಾೋಪ ೆ 2ಾHರುತ< 2ಾHರುತ< 2ಾHರುತ< 2ಾHರುತ<ೆೆೆೆ." (Emphasis added) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16471 CRL.P No. 3777 of 2025 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 learned Magistrate takes cognizance of several offences but not of the offence under Section 406 of the IPC. The order of taking of cognizance reads as follows: "Perused the complaint, Mahazar, statement of witnesses and others records and there are sufficient materials to take cognizance. Cognizance is taken against accused No.1 to 9 in respect of the offence punishable U/s 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence register the case against the Accused No.1 to 9 in Register No.III in respect of the above said offence. Issue SS to A1 to 9. Call on 23.12.2024." (Emphasis added) Cognizance is collectively taken against accused Nos.1 to 9 for several offences. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, charge sheet was filed only for the offences under Section 406, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that Section 406 of the IPC would not get attracted in the case at hand nor other offences concerning forgery as obtaining under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, though the order of taking cognizance is a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16471 CRL.P No. 3777 of 2025 collective order. If what is narrated in the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet is taken note of, the other offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC would not get attracted in the case at hand. The petitioner would become open to offence under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the order of taking cognizance should be obliterated on account of it suffering from non-application of mind. Non-application of mind is contended as it is a collective order of taking cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 9. It is trite that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender as held by the three judges bench of the Apex Court in the case of PRADEEP S. WODEYAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2021) 19 SCC 62. The Apex Court has held as follows: “108.5. It is a settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. However, the cognizance order indicates that the Special Judge has perused all the relevant material relating to the case before cognizance was taken. The change in the form of the order would not alter its effect. Therefore, no “failure of justice” under Section 465 CrPC is proved. This - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16471 CRL.P No. 3777 of 2025 irregularity would thus not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465 CrPC.” (Emphasis supplied) In that light, the order of taking of cognizance cannot be found fault with. However to steer the controversy clear, I deem it appropriate to observe that the petitioner has lured the complainant into a transaction of alleged amount of `1.8 crores to get the post of a Member of the commission to the complainant. Therefore, the intention of the petitioner, from the inception of the transaction, is only to hoodwink the complainant. It therefore becomes a clear ingredient of Section 415 of the IPC, which makes it penal under Section 420 of the IPC. Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC read as follows: “415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to ‘cheat’. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.” 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 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16471 CRL.P No. 3777 of 2025 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.” If the necessary ingredients as found in Section 415 of the IPC, is pitted to the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the unmistakable inference would be that, the petitioner is prima facie guilty of the offence. Therefore, restricting the order of taking cognizance for the present, to the offence under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition, with an observation that other offences would not get attracted to the case of the petitioner. If during the trial, it is seen that other offences get attracted, it is always open to the concerned Court to take recourse to the proceedings in accordance with law. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed-in-part. ii) The petitioner is to be tried for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC and not - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16471 CRL.P No. 3777 of 2025 for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, as there is no material found against him for the aforesaid offences, subject to the observations made in the course of the order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3