IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2933 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SMT. SHAMEERA BEEGAM W/O ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O KARIKKUMPURATH THOOTA POST, ALIPPARAMBA VILLAGE AND DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK, MALAPURAM DISTRICT KERALA STATE 679357 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: D.P.PRASANNA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIVEKNAGAR POLICE REP BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU-01 2. SMT ANGEL JULIET M W/O M N MOHAN G AGED 25 YEARS, R/O 19/1, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR BALAJI GREEN APT, 10TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, FRIENDS COLONY ST BED, BENGALURU-560047 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.150/2014 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT VIVEKNAGAR POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 379 OF IPC NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.
2. The petitioner has sought to quash the FIR in Cr.No.150/2014 for the offence punishable under section 379 IPC.
3. Respondent No.2 herein lodged a report before Viveknagar police alleging that under an agreement dated 07.06.2014, she has taken possession of Toyota Innova Car belonging to the petitioner bearing registration No.KL-53-E- 9708. On 21.06.2014, said vehicle was stolen.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No.KL-53-E-9708. The said vehicle was the subject matter of an agreement between the petitioner and the husband of respondent No.2 Sri. Mohan G. and regarding the said transaction, the petitioner had lodged a complaint against Mohan G and the said dispute ended in a mutual settlement between the aforesaid petitioner and husband of respondent No.2- Mohan G.
5. The contentions urged by the petitioner even if accepted, do not lead to the quashing of the FIR. Even though the petitioner has contended that in respect of the very same vehicle, she had filed a complaint, there is no material to show that any case was registered based on the said complaint. Learned counsel has referred to a receipt dated 20.06.2014. There is nothing in the said receipt to correlate the same to the complaint lodged by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the transaction between the husband of respondent No.2 and the petitioner has no bearing whatsoever on the allegation made in the above case. In the instant case, the specific allegation is that the husband of respondent No.2 has entered into a written agreement dated 07.06.2014 and the said vehicle has been stolen. The allegation made in the complaint requires to be investigated. The documents on which the petitioner has based her claim can be placed before the Investigating Officer. In the event, the investigating Officer is of the opinion that the allegation made against the petitioner do not constitute the offence, it is open for the Investigating Officer to submit a report accordingly. As the FIR contains the allegation of theft of vehicle which was the subject matter of a written agreement of sale, the matter requires to be investigated and hence, this is not a fit case for quashment.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
*mn/-
Sd/- JUDGE