Mr. Thomas Rodrigues Vs the State — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mr. Thomas Rodrigues Vs the State — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Revision petition allowed: judgments dated 04.11.2022 (Sessions Judge, Udupi, Crl.Appeal No.04/2020) and 23.12.2019 (Additional Civil Judge, Udupi, C.C.No.1635/2011) set aside; petitioner acquitted of the charges under Sections 420 and 423 IPC; bail bonds cancelled; offence compounded pursuant to settlement (complainant acknowledged receipt of the Rs.5.00 lakhs Demand Draft)

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence of the petitioner/accused under Sections 420 and 423 IPC should be set aside in view of the settlement between the parties and their prayer for leave to compound the offence under Section 320(2) CrPC

Court's answer

The Court found no impediment to accepting the terms of settlement recorded in the Section 320(2) CrPC application, i.e., it accepted the compounding of the offences agreed between the parties, the complainant having been compensated by the accused

Ratio / Principle

The appellate judgment dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udupi (Crl.Appeal No.04/2020 in the order; styled CRL.A.NO.94/2020 in the cause title) and the trial judgment dated 23.12.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Udupi in C.C.No.1635/2011 are set aside

Key takeaways

The petitioner is acquitted of the charges, and per clause (iv) of the order the bail bonds stand cancelledratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Revision Petition under Sections 397/401 CrPC by the convicted accused challenging the appellate judgment dated 04.11.2022 confirming his conviction under Sections 420 and 423 IPC (trial judgment dated 23.12.2019 in C.C.No.1635/2011, Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi; sentence: one month simple imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine under Section 420, six months' simple imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine under Section 423). The complaint arose from sale of land represented as encumbrance-free although mortgaged to a co-operative bank. Pending revision, the parties settled: the complainant/purchaser paid Rs.2.00 lakhs (the accused's outstanding loan amount) and the accused tendered a Demand Draft of Rs.5.00 lakhs dated 15.09.2025 (Karnataka Bank, Udupi) towards full and final discharge; an application under Section 320(2) CrPC sought leave to compound the offence. Finding the complainant compensated and no impediment to accepting the settlement, the High Court allowed the petition, set aside both the appellate judgment and the trial judgment, acquitted the petitioner and cancelled the bail bonds. (Single Judge: Anant Ramanath Hegde; decided 18.09.2025.)

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:37503 CRL.RP No. 1586 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1586 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

MR. THOMAS RODRIGUES S/O LATE PAUL RODRIGUES AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MARIYA NILAYA GALITHODU AIRODY VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 226

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. K. SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:

THE STATE BRAHMVARA POLICE STATION UDUPI - 576 213

REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

…RESPONDENT

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S. 397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.94/2020 DATED 04.11.2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI AND THE JUDGMENT SENTENCE DATED 23.12.2019 PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI IN C.C.NO.1635/2011 AND THEREBY REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED WAS ACQUITTED FROM THE OFFENCE U/S 420,423 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:37503 CRL.RP No. 1586 of 2022

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed assailing the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence for an offence under Sections 420 and 423 of Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court sentenced the accused for simple imprisonment for one month and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 420 and awarded sentence of six months' simple imprisonment for offence under Section 423 and awarded fine of Rs.1,000/-.

Appeal filed by the accused before the Appellate

Court is dismissed vide judgment dated 04.11.2022 confirming the conviction and sentence passed on 23.12.2019 in C.C.No.1635/2011. Hence, the

petitioner/accused is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP are present. The power of attorney holder of the victim is before this Court.

The records would reveal that the complaint is filed on the premise that the petitioner/accused sold the

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37503 CRL.RP No. 1586 of 2022

HC-KAR

property to the purchaser/original complainant with an assurance that the property is free from encumbrance. However, the complainant alleged that later it transpired that the property was already mortgaged to the co-operative bank and the bank initiated for recovery of dues from the seller/accused.

The Trial Court convicted the accused so also the

Appellate Court.

Now the power of attorney

holder/purchaser/complainant is before this Court. Accused is also before the Court.

An application is filed under Section 320(2) of Criminal Procedure Code recording the terms of settlement and both parties seek leave of the Court to compound the offence. The complainant has paid Rs.2.00 lakhs the outstanding loan amount of the petitioner/accused. The accused has offered to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs towards full and final discharge of claim of the complainant and copy of the Demand Draft for Rs.5.00 lakhs is enclosed along with the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37503 CRL.RP No. 1586 of 2022

HC-KAR

joint memo. The said Demand Draft is dated 15.09.2025 drawn on Karnataka Bank, Udupi.

The complainant acknowledges receipt of the original Demand Draft. Copies of the original Demand Draft so also the General Power of Attorney are enclosed along with the memo.

This Court has also noticed that the dispute is relating to the purchase of the land. The complainant is compensated by the accused.

Under the circumstances, this Court does not find any impediment to accept the terms of settlement. Hence the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned judgment dated 04.11.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udupi in Crl.Appeal No.04/2020 so also the judgment dated 23.12.2019 passed by the

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:37503 CRL.RP No. 1586 of 2022

HC-KAR

Additional Civil Judge, Udupi in C.C.No.1635/2011 are

set-aside.

(iii) Petitioner is acquitted of the charges.

(iv) Bail bonds stands cancelled.

SD/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

BRN/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30