SUJESH KRISHNA Vs. SUDHEESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner challenges the proceedings in C.C. No.493 of 2020 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Thamarassery. The said proceeding has been initiated pursuant to Annexure A3 final report filed in Crime No.1057 of 2019 of Thamarassery Police Station. Petitioner is the second accused in the above case.

(2.) According to the prosecution, the defacto complainant had purchased a lorry bearing registration No.KL-73-A-5253 for Rs.12,10.600 after availing a loan of Rs.9,07,000.00 from a financial institution called HDB Finance. Subsequently the defacto complainant entrusted the vehicle with the second accused on a monthly lease of Rs.15,000.00 with the understanding that the second accused will clear the loan using the income from plying the vehicle and thereafter return the vehicle. A further amount of Rs.3,00,000.00was also given to the second accused to construct the vehicle body. While so, the second accused handed over the vehicle to the first accused who is his brother and informed the defacto complainant that the loan was cleared by 2019 and the defacto compliant handed over an application for obtaining NOC from the financier. However, contrary to the understanding the accused failed to return the vehicle after clearing the loan and later on verification it was realized that the accused had dishonestly transferred the vehicle to their name. After obtaining records under the RTI Act, it was realized that the accused had submitted applications to the RTO offices with forged signatures and the original documents of the vehicle were misused after creating false documents thereby committing the offences under Sec. 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) Sri. Prabhu K.N., the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially, the defacto complainant had filed a complaint before the Magistrate s Court without a supporting affidavit as contemplated in the decision in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of U.P. and Others [(2015) 6 SCC 287] and hence the reference under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the consequent registration of FIR along with the final report are all without any legal basis. Learned counsel further asserted that the second accused had been residing outside India from 2016 onwards and therefore the alleged occurrence being in 2019, he has been falsely implicated in the crime. It was also submitted that if at all any crime has been committed, it required the sanction of the Central Government under Sec. 188 Cr.P.C and hence cognizance taken without such sanction is a non est. Learned counsel also argued that on a perusal of the final report, there is no indication that the second accused had any intention to deceive from the very beginning and the said ingredient being one of the essential ingredients for attracting the offence under Sec. 420, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.