The court established that allegations against a petitioner require direct evidence of involvement in alleged offences to proceed.

ORDER :

C.S.DIAS, J.

1. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the 1^st accused to quash Annexure A4 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.493/2020, on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Thamarassery, (‘Trial Court’, in short), which has originated from Crime No.1057/2019 registered by the Thamarassery Police Station, Kozhikode, alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , (‘ IPC ’, in short).

2. The essence of the 1^st respondent’s (de facto complainant) case in the complaint (Annexure A1) is that, on 17.03.2016, the 1^st respondent had purchased a lorry bearing registration No. KL-73A-5253 from a distributor by paying Rs.12,10,600/-, out of which, he availed a vehicle loan for Rs.9,07,000/-. He registered the vehicle in his name and, on an oral agreement, he entrusted the vehicle to the 2^nd accused along with the original documents, to manage the vehicle, subject to the condition that the 2^nd accused would remit the equated monthly instalments towards the loan amount to the financier, and after the loan account is closed, he would hand over possession of the vehicle to the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent also paid Rs.3,00,000/- for the building of the body of the vehicle. The vehicle's records were handed over to the 2^nd accused in the presence of two witnesses. In the meantime, the 2^nd accused went abroad. Later, he informed the 1^st respondent that he had already handed over the vehicle to his brother, the petitioner (1^st accused), in March 2019. As requested by the accused, the 1^st respondent had sent a letter to the finance company to close the loan account and a ‘No Objection Certificate’ was issued.

Despite repeated requests made by the 1^st respondent, the 1^st accused failed to return the vehicle and the original documents. On enquiry, it was learnt that the 1^st accused had transferred the vehicle to his name by forging the 1^st respondent's signature. Thus, the accused have committed the above offences.

3. I have heard, Shri. Prabhu K.N., the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Luiz Godwin D. Couth, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and Shri.C.S. Hrithwik, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even if the allegations in Annexure A1 complaint and Annexure A4 Final Report are taken on their face value, the same would not attract the offences against the petitioner. The dispute is between the 1^st respondent and the 2^nd accused. There was no transaction between the petitioner and the 1^st respondent. There are no materials on record even to prima facie establish that the petitioner has fabricated or forged any documents. The very fact that the vehicle was purchased in 2016, but the complaint was filed in 2019 proves the falsity in the crime as against the petitioner. Furthermore, the learned Magistrate failed to consider the crucial aspect that the complaint was not accompanied by an affidavit as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2015 KHC 4242] and Babu Venkatesh and others v. State of Karnataka and another [(2022) 5 SCC 639] . Although, by Annexure A6 order, this Court had rejected the petitioner’s prayer to quash the proceedings, by Annexure A7 order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order and permitted the petitioner to file a fresh Crl.M.C. There is no material to substantiate the peti