The High Court quashed criminal proceedings for theft after finding the complaint was a misuse of process. The complainant was neither the vehicle owner, the incident occurred in police presence negating subsequent theft, and the filing lacked a mandatory affidavit.
Proceedings in C.C.No.57567/2017 for offences under Section 379 IPC were quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:23728 CRL.P No. 2587 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2587 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SMT. S VIDHYA W/O SRI.S.POORNALINGAM, D/O.I SINGARAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.40/1, AYYANAR MAIN STREET, GURUNAGAR, NARYANAPURAM WEST, MADHURAI-625014.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.C.R.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO A. SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.09.2017 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 379 OF IPC 1860, AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3. ANNEXURE-E IN CC NO.57567/2017 PENDING IN 43RD ACMM, BANGALORE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the wife seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.57567/2017 pending on the file of XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 379 of IPC.
IPC. The learned Magistrate has taken congnizance of the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC and the proceedings are dropped insofar as accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned.
" 3. The Complainant submits that he was using a motor bike Bajaj pulsar bearing No: KA 02 EG 1189, which belongs to the complainants friend Sanjay
Prakash and Maruti Car 800, bearing No:TN-59 V 7521, car is in the name of complainant's father Subbiah.C The complainant used to park the car in the front of the house, whenever the complainant use to go out station, he used to hand over keys of the car to accused No.1 or 2 as advised, so that if any traffic problem occurs in the road to move the car to avoid such problem in the area. The Complainant submits that similarly when the complainant left the house in the month of November 2012, he had handed over key of the car and bike to Accused No 2, the same is not returned to complainant till today. When the complainant requested accused No 2 to give back the key after he got released on bail in a case lodged by Accused No 3 against the complainant the Accused No 2 said that police have called Accused No 1 and 2 to the police station and they have collected the keys from Accused No 1 and they have taken signature from the Accused No 1 for handing over the keys to them, as it is seized in the case filed by Accused No 3, against complainant."
clearly evident that it is the case of respondent No.1complainant that the custody of the bike and four wheeler is delivered to accused No.3 in the presence of police official. In order to constitute an offence of theft, the person must have moved the movable property out of possession of another with dishonest intention and without
that person's consent. It is equally trite law that if any
one of the element is missing, no offence is made out under Section 379 of Cr.P.C. On examining the records, it appears that respondent No.1-husband who is facing trial on a complaint lodged by petitioner-wife has come up with this frivolous private complaint only as a counter blast. If respondent No.1-complainant is not the owner of the bike and the four wheeler and if these two vehicles were handed over to the present petitioner-accused No.1 as alleged in the complaint in the presence of the police officials, I am of the view that no case is made out. Even
if the allegations made in the private complaint are accepted in its entirety, no offence is made out.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others1 and the subsequent judgment rendered in the case of Babu Venkatesh and
others .vs. State of Karnataka and another2 has held that the complainant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate by filing a private complaint without filing an affidavit and therefore, on this count also, the private complaint is liable to be quashed.
ORDER
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.57567/2017 pending
on the file of XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 379 of IPC. are hereby quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
ALB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
1 (2015) 6 SCC 287
2 AIR Online 2022 SC 175
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings for theft should be quashed due to evidence of non-ownership by the complainant and lack of criminal intent.
Whether the private complaint was invalid because it was not supported by an affidavit as required under Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersExplained¶34
Priyanka Srivastava and another .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2015) 6 SCC 287 · Who else cites this
Babu Venkatesh and others vs. State of Karnataka and anotherExplained¶36
Babu Venkatesh and others .vs. State of Karnataka and another AIR Online 2022 SC 175 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. S Vidhya
Sri. S.P. Poornalingam
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
