IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4295/2016 BETWEEN:
GREGORY SEQUEIRA, MANAGER KARNATAKA AGENCIES, S/O MARTIN SEQUEIRA, AGED 53 YEARS, JAYANAGAR, NEAR PARK, CHIKMAGALUR, CHIKMAALUR DISTRICT – 577 112.
…PETITIONER (BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.K.SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BALEHONNUR POLICE, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. GEORGE MONIS, S/O E.J.MONIS, 54 YEARS, CHRISTIAN, EAGLE EYE RESORTS, KADAVANTHI VILLAGE AND SANGAMESHWARA PETE ANCHE, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK – 577 112.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1; SRI.PRAKASH M.H., ADVCOATE FOR R2 ) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 07.06.2016 IN CR.NO.72/2016 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT - BALEHONNUR POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 READ WITH 34 OF IPC WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has sought to quash the FIR registered against him in crime No.72/2016 by the Balehonnur Police for the offence punishable under Sections 420 read with 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned SPP-II for respondent No.1 – State and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is falsely implicated in the alleged offence. The complaint does not mention the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged transaction. The transaction in question is between accused No.1 and the complainant and hence, registration of case against the petitioner is illegal and an abuse of the process of the Court.
4. A reading of the complaint indicates that accused No.1 supplied / sold a Bolero Mahindra pick-up vehicle bearing Engine No.GHG1C24699 Chassis No.MAIZC 4GHKGIC 35771. On 25.05.2016, the petitioner herein is alleged to have asked the complainant to bring the said vehicle to Karnataka Agencies and thereafter, retained the said vehicle on the pretext that accused No.1 was due to pay a certain sum of money to Karnataka Agencies.
5. The allegations made in the complaint go to show that accused No.2 – namely the petitioner herein has taken possession of the said Bolero vehicle and it was in his custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the complaint lodged by one Fr.Sebestian in respect of the said vehicle. In view of this complaint the ramification of the alleged offence has to be investigated to unearth the true facts. Hence, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the FIR.
6. For the above reasons, petition is dismissed.
In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2018 filed for vacating stay, does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE nvj