Saraswati vs. The State Of Karnataka And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Smt. Saraswati, owner of a lorry, is accused in FIR Crime No. 89/2024 registered at Sedam Police Station for offences under Sections 406, 407, and 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The prosecution alleges that on April 5, 2024, 700 cement bags were loaded onto the petitioner's lorry for transport, with an e-way bill valid for 24 hours. On April 9, 2024, GST officials seized the lorry while it was unloading cement bags at Sri Sugureshwara Traders. The complainant later deposited Rs. 95,812/- to secure the lorry's release. Upon inquiry, Sri Sugureshwara Traders reported receiving only 104 cement bags, with the remaining 596 bags unaccounted for. The complainant could not contact the driver (accused No. 1) and subsequently filed a complaint against both the driver and the lorry owner (petitioner). The petitioner seeks to quash the FIR.
Held
The Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR. The Court found that the complaint did not contain any specific averments directly implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences. While the lorry was seized by GST officials for unloading cement bags contrary to GST principles, and the complainant deposited an amount for its release, the complaint was registered much later, on June 12, 2024, after the lorry's release on May 18, 2024, indicating an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The Court concluded that based on the averments in the complaint, no case was made out against the petitioner, and therefore, it was appropriate to quash the proceedings relating to her. The ratio decidendi is that a lorry owner cannot be held liable for criminal misappropriation under Sections 406, 407, or 409 IPC solely on the basis of ownership, without specific allegations of their direct involvement or knowledge in the commission of the offence, especially when there is a delay in lodging the complaint.
Key Issues
1. Whether the averments in the complaint disclose sufficient material to attract the ingredients of offences under Sections 406, 407, and 409 read with Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioner, who is the owner of the lorry (Question of law)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, as the lorry owner, was unaware of the day-to-day business operations. The complaint lacks specific allegations directly implicating the petitioner in the alleged offences. The petitioner argues that continuing proceedings against her would be an abuse of process. Revenue/State's contention (represented by R2 and R1): The petitioner, being the owner of the lorry, acted in furtherance of a common intention and directed accused No. 1 to commit the offences. There are allegations of misappropriation of 596 cement bags worth Rs. 2,19,000/- against the petitioner, making it inappropriate to quash proceedings at this initial stage. Investigation needs to be completed to determine the petitioner's role.
Sections Cited
Section 406, Section 407, Section 409, Section 34 of IPC
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH)
This petition is filed by the accused No.2 to quash the FIR in Crime No.89/2024 registered by the Sedam Police Station, Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 407 and 409 r/w 34 of the IPC. The brief facts of the case:
It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein being the owner of a lorry, engaged the service of accused No.1 to transport the cement bags from Benakahalli to different parts of the Karnataka State. On 05.04.2024, it is stated that 700 cement bags were loaded in the lorry to reach different parts of the Karnataka. NC: 2025:KHC-K:1548 E-waybill was given for 24 hours. The work has to be completed on 06.04.2024 around 11.59 p.m. as per the E-way bill.
However, on 09.04.2024, the driver of the lorry was unloading the cement bags at Sri. Sugureshwara Traders. When it was being unloading, apprehended and seized the lorry by the GST officials. The said officials have verified the documents and seized the lorry and kept the lorry at Sindhnoor Police Station.
The complainant after having learnt the said lorry was seized by the said GST officials, he deposited the amount of Rs.95,812/- through online and got the lorry released in favour of the owner. Thereafter, on 19.05.2024, when the complainant enquired the said Surgureshwar Traders as to whether they had received the 700 cement bags, he was replied that they received only 104 cement bags and they did not get the remaining 596 cement bags. NC: 2025:KHC-K:1548
The complainant thereafter, tried to contact the driver of the lorry. As he could not contact the said driver, he lodges a complaint against the driver and owner of the lorry.
Heard Sri B.K. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Sri B. Bhimashankar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the lorry and she was not aware day-to-day affairs of the business. The averments of the complaint would indicate that the complainant had tried to contact the driver of the lorry who is arraigned as accused No.1, as he could not contact the accused No.1, he filed the case against the both accused Nos.1 and 2, however, there is no specific allegations made out against the petitioner to attract the ingredients of provisions as stated above. NC: 2025:KHC-K:1548
When the averments of the complaint do not disclose the ingredients of the offences against the petitioner, it would not be appropriate to continue the proceedings against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings.
Per contra, Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the said submission and he further submitted that, the petitioner being an owner of the lorry, in furtherance of common intention, had directed accused No.1 to commit the said offences, therefore, the investigation has to be completed and the role of this petitioner has to be determined. Hence, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. Making such submissions, he prays to dismiss the petition.
Similarly, the learned High Court Government Pleader adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and he further submitted that there are allegations made out against the petitioner for NC: 2025:KHC-K:1548 having misappropriated 596 bags of cement worth of Rs.2,19,000/-, therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings petitioner at the initial stage.
Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, no where in the complaint, it is stated that the petitioner has directly involved in the alleged offences. Moreover, the averments of the complaint would indicate that the driver of the lorry was unloading the cement bags which was contrary to the principles of GST. Therefore, the said lorry was seized and it was released in favour of accused No.
The said lorry came to be released on 18.5.2024 and the present complaint came to be registered on 12.06.2024. There is inordinate in lodging the complaint. Moreover, on reading of the averments of the complaint, no case is made out against the petitioner. Therefore, it is appropriate quash the proceedings relating to the petitioner.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following: NC: 2025:KHC-K:1548 ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The FIR in Crime No.89/2024 dated 12.06.2024 registered by the Sedam Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 407 and 409 r/w 34 of the IPC pending on t he file of the J.M.F.C at Sedam, Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed. (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT:PK
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.