IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.458 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. P. Govindappa, S/o late Papanna, Aged about 62 years, 2. Parthasarathi, S/o late Ramachandrappa, Aged about 67 years, 3. R. Venugopal, S/o late Ramachandrappa, Aged about 62 years, 4. Sripathi, S/o late Ramachandrappa, Aged about 52 years, 5. Smt. Thulasamma, W/o Sripathi, Aged about 49 years, Petitioners No.1 to 5 Residents of Marenahalli Village, Holur Hobli, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District – 563 101.
6. Raghu, S/o Parthasarathi, Aged about 45 years, R/at Mahalakshmi Layout, Behind Anjaneya Temple, Bengaluru – 560 086.
7. Suriprakash, S/o Krishnamurthy, Aged about 41 years, R/at Police Quarters, Koramangala, Bengaluru – 560 034.
8. Prabhakar, S/o Munivenkataswamy, Aged about 37 years, R/at Holur Village, Holur Hobli, Kolar Taluk, Kolar District – 563 101. …Petitioners (By Sri. A.V.Ramakrishna, Advocate) AND:
Rajaram, S/o late Ramachandrappa, Major, Residing at Puluguni Kote, Srinivasapura Taluk, Kolar District – 563 135. ...Respondent (By Sri. R. Bhadrinath, Advocate) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order dated 19.11.2013 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Kolar, in Crl.R.P.No.35/2012 and consequently quash the order dated 26.02.2011 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kolar in C.C.No.199/11 (PCR No.163/2003) and private complaint in the said criminal case number pending on the file of the II Addl. C.J. and JMFC, Kolar.
This Criminal petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.199/2011. The said proceedings were initiated based on the private complaint lodged by the complainant.
2. The complainant/respondent is none other than the elder brother of petitioner Nos.2 to 4. According to the complainant, on 27.02.2000 at about 12.00 P.M. a theft was committed in his house. The allegations made in the private complaint read as under:
“That, the complainant submits that, on 27.2.2000 at about 12.p.m. at mid night the accused are thefted the house articles like furnitures, tables, house hold utensils, ornaments and food grains etc in view of that total value of Rs.20,000/- property thefted by the accused on very next morning on 28.2.2000 lodged a complaint before the Kolar Rural Police Station, the police have given NCR in No.47/2000 to the connected above matter. After 10 days the complainant have known the thefted person in his house. The are accused persons, in view of that, the facts has asked by the Girijamma she has mother of the complainant to the accused, they are trying to assault her, in view of that, the thefted facts are definitely known to the complainant, that persons are accused.”
Bare reading of the aforesaid complaint indicates that the theft had taken place in a dwelling house occupied by the complainant. According to the complainant, the miscreants were not strangers, but his own brothers and close relatives. Under the said circumstances, the allegations made in the complaint that he came to know about the identity of the miscreants only 10 days after the incident appears to be highly improbable and unbelievable. That apart, according to the complainant, the entire house was ransacked. According to him, articles like furniture, tables, household utensils, ornaments and food grains were stolen from his house, which means that nothing was left by the miscreants, which do not appear to be the real fact. According to the complainant, in respect of the said incident, on the following day he had lodged a complaint and the same was registered by the police in NCR No.47/2000. If so, in all probability, the police would have visited the house and would have drawn panchanama. On the other hand, the complaint itself came to be lodged before the learned Magistrate more than three years after the alleged incident. Except the sworn statement of the petitioner, no material is available to show the involvement of the present petitioners in the alleged theft. The material on record indicates that a civil dispute was pending between the parties and there was long standing enmity and ill-will between the parties.
3. Having regard to the above circumstances and having regard to the nature of the accusations made against the petitioners, possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. That apart, the allegations made against the petitioners, even if accepted on their face value, do not make out the ingredients of the offence of theft under Section 380 of IPC. The allegations made in the complaint appear to be inherently improbable, on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioners. Therefore, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners for the alleged offence would be wholly against the interest of justice and an abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.199/2011 pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Kolar, are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV