Saraswati Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC AT SEDAM DIST KALABURAGI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC 406, 407, 409 R/W 34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND TO PREVENT THE ABUSE PROCESS OF LAW, B) TO PASS SUCH ORDER/S WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO PASS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)

¶29

This petition is filed by the accused No.2 to quash the FIR in Crime No.89/2024 registered by the Sedam Police Station, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 407 and 409 r/w 34 of the IPC.

¶30

The brief facts of the case:

¶31

It is the case of the prosecution that the

¶32

petitioner herein being the owner of a lorry, engaged the service of accused No.1 to transport the cement bags from Benakahalli to different parts of the Karnataka State. On 05.04.2024, it is stated that 700 cement bags were loaded in the lorry to reach different parts of the Karnataka.

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1548 CRL.P No. 200701 of 2024

¶34

E-waybill was given for 24 hours. The work has to be completed on 06.04.2024 around 11.59 p.m. as per the E-way bill.

¶35

However, on 09.04.2024, the driver of the lorry

¶36

was unloading the cement bags at Sri. Sugureshwara Traders. When it was being unloading, apprehended and seized the lorry by the GST officials. The said officials have verified the documents and seized the lorry and kept the lorry at Sindhnoor Police Station.

¶37

The complainant after having learnt the said lorry was seized by the said GST officials, he deposited the amount of Rs.95,812/- through online and got the lorry released in favour of the owner. Thereafter, on 19.05.2024, when the complainant enquired the said Surgureshwar Traders as to whether they had received the 700 cement bags, he was replied that they received only 104 cement bags and they did not get the remaining 596 cement bags.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1548 CRL.P No. 200701 of 2024

¶39

The complainant thereafter, tried to contact the

¶40

driver of the lorry. As he could not contact the said driver, he lodges a complaint against the driver and owner of the lorry.

¶41

Heard Sri B.K. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Sri B. Bhimashankar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶42

It is the submission of the learned counsel for

¶43

the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the lorry and she was not aware day-to-day affairs of the business. The averments of the complaint would indicate that the complainant had tried to contact the driver of the lorry who is arraigned as accused No.1, as he could not contact the accused No.1, he filed the case against the both accused Nos.1 and 2, however, there is no specific allegations made out against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of provisions as stated above.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1548 CRL.P No. 200701 of 2024

¶45

When the averments of the complaint do not

¶46

disclose the ingredients of the offences against the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to continue the proceedings against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings.

¶47

Per contra, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the said submission and he further submitted that, the petitioner being an owner of the lorry, in furtherance of common intention, had directed accused No.1 to commit the said offences, therefore, the investigation has to be completed and the role of this petitioner has to be determined. Hence, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶48

Similarly, the learned High Court Government Pleader adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and he further submitted that there are allegations made out against the petitioner for

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1548 CRL.P No. 200701 of 2024

¶50

having misappropriated 596 bags of cement worth of Rs.2,19,000/-, therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings petitioner at the initial stage.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶52

respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, no where in the complaint, it is stated that the petitioner has directly involved in the alleged offences. Moreover, the averments of the complaint would indicate that the driver of the lorry was unloading the cement bags which was contrary to the principles of GST. Therefore, the said lorry was seized and it was released in favour of accused No.2. The said lorry came to be released on 18.5.2024 and the present complaint came to be registered on 12.06.2024. There is inordinate in lodging the complaint. Moreover, on reading of the averments of the complaint, no case is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, it is appropriate quash the proceedings relating to the petitioner.

¶53