IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6887 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SHRAVYA MOHAN B.C. D/O CHANDRAMOHAN AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.22/43 3RD CROSS, 4TH BLOCK KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI.K. LAKSHMI KANTH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001.
2. SRI. SATHIESH S/O EREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR PROPRIETOR OF OM ENTERPRISES, NO.17/93 AND 94 CHENNENAHALLI TAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE 560 074.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.114/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MAGADI.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4 in the remand application filed by the police during the investigation in Crime No.114/2016.
2. Initially, the complaint was registered only against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the allegation that accused Nos. 1 to 3 had taken centering materials from complainant on hire and failed to return the same. In the course of investigation, petitioner herein is impleaded on the ground that he helped accused No.3 in the commission of the above offences.
3. The allegation levelled against the petitioner does not render him liable for the prosecution for the said offence. The case of the complainant/ prosecution is that, centering material was taken on hire by accused Nos. 1 to 3 and it is accused Nos. 1 to 3 who failed to return the said articles. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner or any other persons have helped in the transportation or in making use of the said materials, the same do not render them liable for criminal offence under Section 406 or 420 IPC in the absence of any criminal intent on the part of the petitioner to cheat or mis-appropriate the said properties.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the implication of the petitioner in the alleged offences being baseless and a clear case of abuse of process of law. Petition is allowed.
FIR in Crime No.114/2016 is quashed only in so far as accused No.4 is concerned.
Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*