Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short "Cr.P.C.") to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.358 of 2015 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.").

Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint on the file of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally at Miyapur for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 420 of I.P.C. alleging that the petitioner No.2 is his wife and the petitioner No.2 is his mother-in-law. Due to differences between them, respondent No.2 filed M.C.No.3798 of 2012 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Bangalore for grant of divorce and the same was transferred to Mumbai as per the orders of the Apex Court. The petitioner No.1 started living separately with her parents. On coming to know about the initiation of divorce proceedings, both the petitioners trespassed into his leased apartment and started living there, but he did not disturb their stay. During their stay in the leased apartment, the petitioners sold some of the household articles through Quikr and OLX. Respondent No.2 also filed a suit O.S.No.12 of 2013 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The Judge, Family Court appointed Advocate-Commissioner to note down the valuables that are available in the house. Accordingly, the Advocate- Commissioner visited the premises and noted down the valuables MSM,J Crl.P_12762_2017 available in the flat and submitted report to the Court. After submitting report also, the petitioners sold some of the articles. The respondent No.2 again sought for appointment of Advocate - Commissioner and got the valuables missed in the house are listed. Later, the petitioners vacated the premises. Thus, the petitioners committed criminal breach of trust and misappropriated the property belonging to the respondent No.2 and cheated the respondent No.2 with dishonest intention to part with property or valuable security.

In view of guideline No.3, when the allegations made in the charge sheet do not constitute commission of cognizable offence, the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

MSM,J Crl.P_12762_2017 In the present case, as seen from the contents of the charge sheet narrated above, the petitioner No.1 is the wife of respondent No.2 and the petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law of the respondent No.2 and there were disputes between them, as a result of which divorce petition and suits are also filed against one another and they are pending for adjudication. The prime allegation made against the petitioners is that they entered into the leased flat in the apartment of respondent No.2 and sold some of the valuable items by Quikr and OLX and produced certain documents to prove the advertisement in the two websites. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on two reports of Advocate - Commissioner.

To constitute an offence punishable under Section 403 of I.P.C. there must be dishonest misappropriation of movabe property. Here, the allegations made against the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 obtained premises on lease for his stay, but these petitioners allegedly entered into the premises, sold the movable property through Quikr and OLX.

The material collected during investigation and produced along with the petition clearly shows that the petitioners entered into the leased premises of respondent No.2 and sold certain items of movable property. When the leased flat belongs to the respondent No.2, he is deemed to be the owner of the articles found in the house, they are a. Samsung 1.5 Ton Split AC with stand and stabilizer. b. LG 2 Ton Split AC with stand and stabilizer. c. Samsung Fully Automatic Top Loading Washing Machine with stand and cover.

d. Samsung 455 Litres, Refrigerator (steel grey) e. LG Microwave with Convection, grill steamer, Rotisseric, Multi Cook Tawa (steel grey).

f. Sofa Set (3+2+1) g. Bean Bag Brown XXL.

MSM,J Crl.P_12762_2017 h. Wooden Dining Table with glass top and 6 Chairs. i. King size bed with 2 side tables and full storage. j. Queen Size bed with one side table and full storage. k. King Bed Mattress (Kurlon) l. Queen Bed Mattress (Kurlon) The petitioners offered those items for sale in Quikr and OLX and the report of the Commissioner in I.A.1756 of 2013 in I.A.No.1517 of 2013 in O.S.No.12 of 2013 and the earlier report of the Commissioner clearly establish that some of the movable items were missed in the flat. When the petitioners herein are in possession, either legal or illegal, they are bound to account for the movable property to the respondent No.2, who obtained the premises on lease and resided in the said flat before the petitioners entered into the premises. But the petitioners did not give any explanation though the burden lies on them to account for the movable items missed in the flat in view of Section 106 of Evidence Act. Therefore, the material on record prima facie establishes that the petitioners herein entered into the leased apartment of complainant and offered to sell the movables in Quikr and OLX, later they were not available when the Advocate Commissioner visited the premises for the 2nd time, in such case sale of the items and appropriating the amount realized would constitute an offence punishable under Section 403 of I.P.C. When the material on record prima facie disclosed commission of offence punishable under Section 403 of I.P.C., the proceedings against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 403 of I.P.C. cannot be quashed.