(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY., ADVOCATE) v. R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.)

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE -560 001

MANJUNATH B., S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.26/1 12TH CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560079 (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R-1, R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29012 CRL.P No. 9287 of 2021 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.22564/2021 (CR.NO.70/2021 OF MAGADI ROAD P.S.) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III A.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 392,411 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA)

1. The petitioner is the third accused. He is aggrieved by the laying if a chargesheet against him.

2. A complaint was lodged on 13.04.2021 by one Sri. Manjunatha B. alleging that his mobile was stolen when he was walking on the road.

The Police after investigation apprehended accused No.1, Syed Irfan, who had committed the act of robbery and this Syed Irfan made a voluntary statement to the Police saying that he had thereafter exchanged the mobile phone that he had robbed from Sri. Manjunatha B. and got it exchanged for a new mobile phone in the shop run by the petitioner. The petitioner is, therefore, arrayed as - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:29012 CRL.P No. 9287 of 2021 third accused for the offences punishable under Section 392 and 411 of IPC.

A reading of the sworn statement as well as the summary of the chargesheet does not indicate that the petitioner herein was aware of the fact that the mobile was stolen. There is no averment either in the statement of the first accused or in the chargesheet that he has dishonestly received the stolen property. In the absence of these vital ingredients against the petitioner, there is no justification to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 392 and 411 of IPC. The proceedings as against the petitioner, therefore, shall stand quashed. The petition is, accordingly, allowed.

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. HNM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52 Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE