J RAMACHANDRA RAJU Vs. SANNAPPA LAKMAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the petitioner who is accused No. 1 has moved this Court for clashing the criminal proceedings instituted by respondent No. 1 ] complainant (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) in. private complaint No- 61 of 1979 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class; Ranibennur.

(2.) On 13-9-1979 at 5-30 p.m., the respondent presented a private complaint before the learned Magistrate, complaining that the petitioner and another person by name R. Balaraman, accused No. 2 respondent No. 2 have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 427, 405 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Among others the respondent has alleged that he was the registered owner, permit holder of a motor vehicle bearing No. MYW 3531, popularly called as a truck or a lorry used for carrying goods for hire or reward and the accused along with two persons of Ranebennur, approached him for sale of the vehicle. In his complaint, the respondent, does not specify the date, time and place where the persons met him for the said purpose. But, at the hearing, learned counsel for the contesting parties viz.. the pe'itioner and the respondent, agreed that the same took place on or about 19th or 20th August, 1979. At that meeting, the respondent stated that the vehicle was not available at Ranebennur and had been sent to a nearby place called Tumminakatti and was stationed at Halageri and that he was ready and willing to sell the same fora fair price. In answer to the. same, the accused having shown interest to purchase the vehicle and inspect the same at Halageri, proceeded to Halageri along with the respondent, where they found the truck in the bus stand of that place. The accused and others inspected the vehicle, agreed to purchase the same, if the same was certified to. be fit by their mechanic at Bangalore, to which the respondent agreed and delivered the same to the accused and sent it to Bangalore along with his son Dyamappa,. At or from Bangalore the accused caused the disappearance of the vehicle and have removed the same to Tiruvannamalai of Tamilnadu State. On these main and other allegations, the respondent claims that the accused have committed acts of mischief and have dishonestly induced him to deliver the vehicle and are liable to be punished for offences punishable under Sections 420, 425 and 427 I.P.C. He has also alleged that the police who were approached with a complaint on the previous day did not receive the same on the ground that he may approach the Court itself. Lastly, he has alleged that the offences were committed by the accused within the jurisdiction of the Ranebennur Court.