IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2009 / 16TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1635 of 2009() ----------------------------------- CRIME NO.100/2009 OF MARANALLOOR POLICE STATION .................. PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- NIZAMUDEEN, T.C.42/249, HOUSE NO.39, G.H.S. LANE, MANACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAMJUKA SUDHEER, M.P./XI/491, INDANOORKONAM, KANDALA P.O., KATTAKADA - 695 521. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. R2 BY ADV. MR.B.HARISH KUMAR, MR.Y.BOBBY JOSEPH. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.1635 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 7th day of July,2009 ORDER Second respondent filed Annexure C complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kattakkada alleging that petitioner committed an offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint, for investigation under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure D F.I.R was registered based on Annexure C complaint, as directed by the learned Magistrate. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure C complaint and Annexure D F.I.R contending that even if the allegations in Annexure C is accepted, no cognizable offence is made out and therefore they are to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and second respondent were heard. 3. The allegations in Annexure C complaint, even if accepted as true, would only show that second respondent is the owner of Lancer Car No.KL.01.AR.8922 Crl.M.C.1635/2009 2 and on 18.3.2009 petitioner came to the house of second respondent and sought permission of the second respondent to take the car for the purpose of taking his child to the hospital and second respondent granted him permission and petitioner took the car away but did not return the car and thereby committed the offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code. 4. As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, even if the entire allegations in Annexure C is accepted as true, no ingredients of an offence under section 415 of Indian Penal Code which is necessary to constitute an offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code is made out. Infact no cognizable offence is made out on the allegations in Annexure C. Therefore Annexure D F.I.R registered by the police based on Annexure C complaint, for the offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code can only be quashed. Petition is allowed. Annexure C complaint and Annexure D F.I.R in Crime No.100/2009 of Maranaloor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006