IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 703 of 2003() --------------------------------- CRIME NO.196/00 OF VADAKARA POLICE STATION CC.62/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VADAKARA .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- DINESH KUMAR, S/O. NARAYANAN KURUP, 35 YEARS, PALOLI HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, PAMBIRIKUNNU DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------- THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VADAKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. * ADDL. R2 IMPLEADED ADDL. R2: DINESH KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN KURUP, 37 YEARS, PALILI HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. * IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30/05/2005 IN CRL. M.A. NO.6669/2005. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SLIM SRI.T.M.RAMAN KARTHA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 703 of 2003-C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008. ORDER Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.2 in CC.No.62/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara has preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the above proceedings pending against him. 2. Petitioner and the co-accused had been charge sheeted by Vadakara Police in Crime No. 196/2000 pursuant to a private complaint filed by respondent No.2 herein, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. The complaint was forwarded to the Police under Section 156(3) of the Code. 3. In Annexure A3 complaint filed by respondent No.2 it is seen alleged that he had sold a bus bearing registration No. KRZ 4365 to accused No.1 (O.Sreedharan, son of Anandan) on the strength of an agreement dated March 2, 1996 for a sum of Rs,2,57,500/-. According to the complainant accused No.1 was put in possession of the vehicle pursuant to the sale and all documents relating to the vehicle had been handed over to him. But the complainant alleged that accused No.1 had failed to effect transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his name. He had also failed to remit the vehicle tax, insurance etc. Therefore the complainant was constrained to submit G Form application as provided under the Crl.MC.703/03 2 Kerala Motor Vehicle (Taxation) Act and Rules before the competent authority. Since it was reported that accused No.2 was in possession of the vehicle at the relevant point of time, the matter was communicated to him also. But the complainant came to know that accused No.2 had stealthily removed the vehicle from his residential premises and taken it away to Kannur on March 25, 2000. It was at that stage that the complainant had preferred Annexure A3 complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara alleging commission of offence under Sections 379 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. As mentioned earlier, the complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the Police under section 156(3) of the Code. The Police had charge sheeted the petitioner and the other two accused after completing the investigation. The other accused was the subsequent purchaser of the vehicle from accused No.2. 4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had purchased the vehicle in question on November 2, 1999 on the strength of Annexure A1 agreement from one K.T.Asokan who had purchased it from accused No.1. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel nothing is discernible from the complaint as to how petitioner could be alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC. It is pertinent to note that the de facto complainant had admittedly sold the vehicle to accused No.1 in March 1996. It is hard to believe that he waited till March 2000 before taking any action for the alleged failure of accused No.1 to effect transfer of the vehicle in his name. It is yet again difficult to believe that he was Crl.MC.703/03 3 not aware as to who had been operating the vehicle in the meanwhile. It is significant to note that the Police had not charge sheeted the 3 accused including the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. Going by the allegations in the complaint the only offence if at all that the accused might have committed would be one under section 379 IPC because obviously the petitioner had nothing to do with the transaction between the complainant and accused No.1. 5. In any view of the matter I am satisfied that the prosecution initiated against the petitioner cannot be sustained. Therefor the proceedings pending against the petitioner in CC.No. 62/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadkara are quashed. Crl.M.C is allowed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an. Crl.MC.703/03 4 A.K. Basheer, J. Crl.MC. 703 of 2003 Order 30/5/2008