ORDER v. Jagannathan, J: Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 2. The prayer in this petition is to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a private complaint alleging offences under Sections 182 and 188 of IPC and the order dated 30.9.2004 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Gangavathi directing the C.M.O to transfer the complaint before the C.J.M., Koppal is sought to be quashed in this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and also to quash the complaint that is filed under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangavathi. 3. As per the complaint which is produced at Annexure-G to this petition, the reason for the complaint has its origin in I.A. 2 filed by the plaintiff in the suit and the said I.A. was for seeking amendment of the date of acknowledgment of debt from 25.4.01 to 25.10.01 and the said application was rejected by the trial Court dealing with the suit i.e., O.S.No.41/03. The petitioner under the impression that the amendment application had been allowed, following the words of his junior, went to the Court and effected necessary correction in the plaint as regards the above date and later the complainant on coming to know of the correction made with regard to the date, therefore took the view that there was no occasion for the petitioner to have made necessary rectification in the plaint when the amendment application itself has been rejected. Therefore, the complainant prayed for taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. 4. As could be seen from the material placed, the petitioner also tendered an apology, but the learned Judge of the Trial Court directed the C.M.O to present the complaint before the C.J.M., Koppal and it is this complaint as well as direction that is given that are called in question in this petition. 5. 4. As could be seen from the material placed, the petitioner also tendered an apology, but the learned Judge of the Trial Court directed the C.M.O to present the complaint before the C.J.M., Koppal and it is this complaint as well as direction that is given that are called in question in this petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a practicing Advocate having a very long standing of over two decades in the profession and the mistake that has occurred is on account of improper communication given to him by his junior and therefore under the impression that the amendment application has been allowed, the petitioner therefore went to the office of the C.M.O and effected necessary correction of the date with regard to the acknowledgment of debt. Later on, coming to know that the application had not been allowed, the petitioner also sought an apology from the learned Judge of the Court by stating that it was a bona fide mistake and also expressed his regret for the mistake that had occurred unintentionally and an affidavit was also filed in support of the same. All these materials were not considered by the complainant and the observation that the affidavit filed does not contain an apology, is totally incorrect and against the very spirit in which the affidavit is filed and therefore the direction to present the complaint cannot be sustained in law, as the very apology tendered by the petitioner itself was sufficient indication of a bona fide mistake committed on account of an improper communication. 6. The further submission made is that the very suit which was filed by the petitioner on behalf of the Bank being a suit for mortgage, no difference would have been made even if the correction had not been carried out and apart from this, the very suit' itself was decreed in favour of the Bank for which the petitioner was appearing. Under all these circumstances, the chances of offences being made out against the petitioner are very bleak and therefore the ends of justice would be met by quashing the complaint as well as the subsequent direction given to lodge the complaint. Under all these circumstances, the chances of offences being made out against the petitioner are very bleak and therefore the ends of justice would be met by quashing the complaint as well as the subsequent direction given to lodge the complaint. In support of the above submission, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2003 BC 1386 and referred to paras 10 and 11 and also submitted that the proceedings if were to continue would also be futile and would be a heavy burden on the time of the Court and moreover in view of the apology tendered by the petitioner, it was not warranted to have proceeded further in this matter having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case. 7. On the other hand learned Government Pleader for the respondent State submitted that it is for this Court to consider the circumstances of this case and pass necessary orders which would meet the ends of justice. 8. In the light of the aforementioned submission, I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and I find that in order dated 30.9.04 it has been mentioned by the complainant that the affidavit filed by the petitioner does not contain an apology. This observation, in my view, is quite contrary to the very affidavit that is filed by the petitioner along with his letter. The letter addressed to the complainant by the petitioner reads as under: "I, K.R. Deshpande, the Advocate do hereby pray for the apology of your honour for having amended the plaint in O.S. No. 11/2003 without verifying the order of the Hon'ble Court and the same is not an intentional one and it is a bona fide mistake and I assure your Honour that such mistakes will not be repeated by me in future." 9. In the affidavit the petitioner has also stated on oath that due to the mistake of his junior, that the petitioner was under the impression that the amendment had been allowed and therefore the petitioner has stated that he effected the amendment in good faith and given an undertaking that such mistakes will not occur in future. It is also mentioned in the very affidavit that on the date when the order was passed, the petitioner was absent. It is also mentioned in the very affidavit that on the date when the order was passed, the petitioner was absent. But on the next day his junior colleague namely Sri Channabasanagouda informed the petitioner that the amendment had been allowed. 10. Having taken note of the tenor of the letter (Annexure-D) and, the contents of the sworn affidavit (Annexure-E), it cannot be said that there is no apology by the petitioner. The learned Judge of the Trial Court therefore was not right in saying that the letter and affidavit does not contain any apology. 11. Apart from the above, it also has to be stated that the Trial Court while disallowing the application for amendment has so observed that allowing the amendment would not make any difference to the case of the plaintiff and the suit of the plaintiff was also decreed following the defendant remaining ex parte. Under the said circumstances, rectification of the date of acknowledgment therefore could have made little impact on the outcome of the case. No doubt, the date has been rectified despite the amendment application having been rejected. But the petitioner has given valid reasons as to how the mistake had occurred and I am satisfied that the mistake had occurred due to bona fide reasons and it is totally an unintentional. 12. The Apex Court in the case of B.S. Joshi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 has also observed at para 10 of the judgment by referring to the decision rendered earlier in State of Karnataka Vs L. Muniswamy and Others that the power of quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is the wholesome power and the High Court is entitled to quash proceedings, if it comes to the conclusion that the ends of justice so require. It was further observed that in a criminal case the whole object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice and that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law, though justice had got to be administered according to laws.' 13. In the very same decision, at para. In the very same decision, at para. 11, referring to the observations made earlier in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia's case it is noted that it is for the High Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, chances of, an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may, while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceedings. 14. Having regard to the aforesaid observations of the Apex Court, I am of the view that the instant case is one which can be brought within the fold of a case having special features inasmuch as 'the very apology tendered by the petitioner who is said to have a long standing in the bar for over two decades and the lack of proper communication between him and his junior and further the amendment having no effect on the outcome of the case as the suit itself was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, all these factors taken together, leads to an inference that this is a case where in the face of apology tendered by the petitioner himself both in his letter addressed to the complainant and in the sworn affidavit, the chances of ultimate conviction is very bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the proceedings to continue. Moreover, as the Apex Court has observed in the aforementioned case that the ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law, though justice had got to be administered according to laws made by the Legislature, and hence these factors therefore incline me to allow this petition for the aforementioned special and peculiar circumstances and hence I pass the following order. The petition is allowed. The complaint as well as the direction given by the complainant in P.C.R. 74 of 2004 are quashed.