JUBY THOMAS Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in CC No.509/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Perumbavoor, for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 IPC.

(2.) The defacto complainant is the 2nd respondent. He had approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court with Annexure A2 complaint. In that complaint, it is stated that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale with him, for purchase of his lorry bearing No.KL.17.B.6146, for a sale consideration, equaling the outstanding amount due on hire purchase to the ICICI bank for Rs.20,000/- over and above that. The said amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid and the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner. However, the hire purchase installment due to the ICICI bank was not paid by the petitioner and subsequently, he returned the vehicle on 10.12.2006 to the defacto complainant, and it is stated that the vehicle was parked near the road and on 20.12.2006, the vehicle was not found at the area where it was parked and subsequently, it is noticed that the petitioner had stolen the vehicle and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. The complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Perumbavoor and after investigation, the final report at Annexure A1 was filed, in which it is stated that an offence under Section 420, 468 of IPC has been committed by the petitioner and not an offence under Section 379 as alleged by the defacto complainant.

(3.) The defacto complainant was served with notice but none appears. Though a counsel appeared and vakalath was filed, there was no representation, and hence no submissions were placed on behalf of the 2nd respondent.