IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4849 OF 2016 Between:
Sri. M.R. Surendranath, S/o Rajakrishna, Aged about 61 years, Surabhi Jewellers, Nagaraja Complex, Raja Market, Avenue Road, Bengaluru – 560 002. …Petitioner (By Shri. Swamy M.M., Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka, Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Smt. Meenakshi, W/o Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 39 years, No.87, 9th Main, Sri. Muneshwara Layout, Chaya Puthra General Store, Vaderahalli, Bengaluru City – 560 097. …Respondents (By Shri. Sandesh J Chouta, SPP – II for R1; R2 served) ---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.15482/2015 on the file of IV ACMM, Bangalore City vide Annexure – D in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court in the following circumstances. It transpires that one Meenakshi had filed a complaint that she was running a provision store at Vidyaranyapura and at about 10.00 p.m. at night when she was in her shop the accused No.1 had come on his motorcycle and had asked for four eggs. When she was wrapping the eggs he has suddenly snatched the golden chain that she was wearing weighing about 24 grams worth about Rs.35,000/- and had ran away on his motorcycle. It is on the basis of this complaint and after investigation that the police had arrested the accused No.1 and on his voluntary statement had found that he had sold it to a jeweler who has named as witness and from whom the petitioner is said to have purchased the chain. Initially the petitioner as well as the jeweler were named as witnesses, but subsequently the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 while the jeweler continues to be named as witness. This is indeed borne out from the sequence of events and it is perplexing that the dealer has not been treated as a person who had purchased the stolen property, but the petitioner who was a customer who had purchased the chain across the counter in a bonafide transaction could not be named as a witness. This is apparent from the records. Therefore, the prosecution would do well to reexamine the case well and name the jeweler as an accused and the petitioner should be absolved of the same. Accordingly, the petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner pending in C.C.No.15482/2015 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE ykl