Karnataka High Court
Naveed Ahmed vs State Of Karnataka By on 5 December, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44196
CRL.P No. 11972 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11972 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
NAVEED AHMED
S/O LATE AMEER SAB
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT PENSION MOHALLA
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARIAPPA N.A., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN POLICE
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MR. ZIA-UR-REHMAN
S/O MOHAMMED FAZLUR RAHMAN
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
AYYAPPA NAGAR EXTENSION
CHIKKAMAGALUR CITY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VENKATSATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI CHANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44196
CRL.P No. 11972 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS OF CONVICTIONS AND
SENTENCES DATED 04.01.2016 PASSED IN C.C.NO.711/2011
ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND C.J.M CHIKKAMAGALUR, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420,
465, 468 AND 471 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-A WHICH IS
CONFIRMED IN CRL.A.NO.20/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU BY JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
16.09.2020 AS PER ANNEXURE-B AND FURTHER CONFIRMED
IN CRL.RP.NO.610/2020 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE HIGH
COURT BY JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 04.09.2023 AS PER
ANNEXURE-E AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT HIM FOR THE
OFFENCES ALLEGED AS COMPOUNDED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR REPORTING
SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned HCGP accepts notice for the respondent-State.
2. Sri Chandan, learned counsel files power for
respondent No.2. The same is placed on record.
3. Office objection regarding maintainability is
overruled.
4. The petitioner is convicted for the offence
punishable under section 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. The
judgment of conviction was challenged by the petitioner before
the Appellate Court as well as the Revision Court and the same
have been dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction.
NC: 2023:KHC:44196
5. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing
the impugned judgment of conviction stating that the parties
have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and to
maintain the cordial relationship, the respondent No.2 has
agreed to withdraw all the allegations and has no objections for
quashing the impugned judgment of conviction.
6. The charge against the petitioner was that the
petitioner by forging the signature of the complainant executed
the agreement of sale purportedly to show that the subject
property belongs to him and sold the subject property for
valuable sale consideration and making use of the fabricated
documents filed the suit for specific performance of agreement
of sale.
7. In the suit filed by the petitioner for specific
performance of the agreement of sale in O.S.No.393/2008, the
parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves,
and in terms of the settlement the suit was withdrawn and the
2nd respondent in the said suit has agreed to withdraw all the
allegations made against the petitioner.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner had forged the signature
on the agreement of sale and the same is made use to file a
suit for specific performance. Therefore, the cognizance of the
offence committed in relation to a proceedings in a Court can
be taken only upon writing by an Officer prescribed as stated
under section 195 Cr.P.C.
NC: 2023:KHC:44196
9. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Bandekar
Brothers Private Limited and another -vs- Prasad Vassudev
Keni and other reported in (2020) 20 SCC 1 has held as
follows:
"48. Equally important to remember is that if in
the course of the same transaction two separate
offences are made out, for one of which Section 195
CrPC is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them
up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed.
Thus, in State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy [State of
Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC
(Cri) 395] , this Court referred to a judgment of the
Madras High Court (V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy, In re
[V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v. State, 1953 SCC OnLine
Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237] ) and approved its ratio
as follows : (Hemareddy case [State of Karnataka v.
Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] ,
SCC pp. 190-91, paras 7-8)
................. The effect of the allegations in the
complaint preferred by the complainant is that the
petitioner has caused this will to come into existence
intending that such will may cause the Judge before
whom the suit is filed to form an opinion that the will is
a genuine one and, therefore, his minor daughter is
entitled to the property. The allegation, therefore, in the
complaint will undoubtedly fall under Section 192 IPC. It
will, therefore, amount to an offence under Section 193
IPC i.e. fabricating false evidence for the purpose of
being used in the judicial proceeding. There is no doubt
that the facts disclosed will also amount to an offence
under Sections 467 and 471 IPC. For prosecuting this
petitioner for an offence under Sections 467 and 471, a
complaint by the court may not be necessary as under
Section 195(1)(b) CrPC a complaint may be made only
when it is committed by a party to any proceeding in
any court.
Mr Jayarama Ayyar does not give up his
contention that the petitioner, though he appears only a
guardian of the minor girl, is still a party to the
NC: 2023:KHC:44196
proceeding. But it is unnecessary to go into the question
at the present moment and I reserve my opinion on the
question whether the guardian can be a party to a
proceeding or not, as this case can be disposed of on
the other point viz. that when the allegations amount to
an offence under Section 193 IPC, a complaint of court
is necessary under Section 195(1)(a) CrPC and this
cannot be evaded by prosecuting the accused for an
offence for which a complaint of court is not necessary.'
8. We agree with the view expressed by the
learned Judge and hold that in cases where in the
course of the same transaction an offence for which no
complaint by a court is necessary under Section
195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and an
offence for which a complaint of a court is necessary
under that sub-section, are committed, it is not possible
to split up and hold that the prosecution of the accused
for the offences not mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure should be upheld."
10. The issue with regard to whether compromise can
be arrived at between the parties post conviction and the Court
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can
entertain such compromise and close the proceedings despite
conviction is answered by the Apex Court in the case of
RAMGOPAL AND ANOTHER -VS- STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine 834 wherein the Apex Court holds
as follows:
"13. It appears to us that criminal proceedings
involving non-heinous offences or where the offences
are predominantly of a private nature can be
annulled irrespective of the fact that trial had already
been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against
conviction. Handout punishment is not the sole form
of delivering justice. Societal method of applying
NC: 2023:KHC:44196
laws evenly is always subject to lawful exceptions. It
goes without saying, that the cases where compromise is
struck post-conviction, the High Court ought to exercise
such discretion with rectitude, keeping in view the
circumstances surrounding the incident, the fashion in
which the compromise has been arrived at, and with due
regard to the nature and seriousness of the offence,
besides the conduct of the accused, before and after the
incidence. The touchstone for exercising the extra-
ordinary power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would be to
secure the ends of justice. There can be no hard and
fast line constricting the power of the High Court to
do substantial justice. A restrictive construction of
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may lead
to rigid or specious justice, which in the given facts
and circumstances of a case, may rather lead to
grave injustice. On the other hand, in cases where
heinous offences have been proved against
perpetrators, no such benefit ought to be extended,
as cautiously observed by this Court in Narinder
Singh v. State of Punjab and Laxmi Narayan (Supra).
... ... ...
19. We thus sum-up and hold that as opposed to
Section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by
the compromise between the parties in respect of offences
'compoundable' within the statutory framework, the extra-
ordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the
Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds
of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that
such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised
carefully in the context of quashing criminal
proceedings, bearing in mind : (i) Nature and effect
of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii)
Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary
nature of compromise between the accused and the
victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior
to and after the occurrence of the purported offence
and/or other relevant considerations."
(Emphasis supplied)
11. The Apex Court, right from the year 2003 in the
case of B.S.JOSHI V. STATE OF HARYANA reported in
NC: 2023:KHC:44196
(2003)4 SCC 675 which is subsequently followed by the Apex
Court in the case of NIKHIL MERCHANT V. CENTRAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in (2008)9 SCC 677
and in the case of MANOJ SHARMA V. STATE AND OTHERS
reported in (2008)16 SCC 1 has considered the fact that post
conviction, a settlement can be accepted and proceedings can
be obliterated by the Court, hearing a petition under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C.
12. The petitioner is convicted for the offences
punishable under section 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and the
said offences are non-heinous and predominantly of a private
nature. The 2nd respondent victim having resolved the dispute
with the petitioner and having no objection to quash the
impugned judgment of conviction to maintain cordial
relationship, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned
judgment of conviction to secure the ends of justice.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgments and order of conviction
and sentence dated 04.01.2016 passed in C.C.No.711/2011 on
the file of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M
Chikkamagalur, for the offences P/U/S 420, 465, 468 and 471
of IPC as per Annexure-A which is confirmed in
Crl.A.No.20/2016 on the file of the Hon'ble I Addl. District and
Session Judge, Chikkamagaluru by judgment and order dated
NC: 2023:KHC:44196
16.09.2020 as per Annexure-B and further confirmed in
Crl.RP.NO.610/2020 on the file of Hon'ble High Court by
Judgment and order dated 04.09.2023 as per Annexure-E are
hereby quashed.
iii) The petitioner is acquitted of the offences alleged.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
