Mere Knowledge Of Where Stolen Articles Were Kept Can't Sustain Prosecution Without Material Linking Accused To Theft: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere knowledge of where valuable articles are kept, coupled with general suspicion, cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution for theft, while quashing an FIR registered against a man under Section 305 BNS.Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that when different complaints made by family members disclose materially contradictory versions...
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere knowledge of where valuable articles are kept, coupled with general suspicion, cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution for theft, while quashing an FIR registered against a man under Section 305 BNS.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that when different complaints made by family members disclose materially contradictory versions regarding missing gold articles, then allowing investigation to continue against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
“The petitioner is sought to be implicated essentially on the ground that he was aware of where the gold articles were kept and had access to the house. Mere knowledge of the place where articles are kept, coupled with a general suspicion, cannot by itself constitute the basis for a criminal prosecution for theft, particularly when the material already on record discloses a completely different circumstance in which substantial quantities of gold were allegedly handed over to the petitioner,” the Court said.
It further added, “This Court is conscious that, ordinarily, the allegations in an FIR are not required to be tested as though the Court were conducting a trial. However, the Court is equally required to prevent the criminal process from being used where the material placed on record demonstrates that the prosecution is founded on mutually inconsistent versions and that the essential factual foundation for the alleged offence is absent.”
In the present case, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash an FIR registered against him under Section 305 (theft in a dwelling house) of the BNS.
The complainant (the second respondent) alleged that the petitioner— whose mother had worked as a domestic servant in his house from 2013 to 2021— knew where gold articles were kept in his newly constructed house and suspected that the petitioner had stolen them. However, the complaint, failed to disclose the exact date of the alleged theft, only mentioning that the gold articles were present during a housewarming ceremony and subsequently found missing during a festival.
“Thus, the complaint itself does not identify the date on which the alleged theft took place. It merely proceeds on the assumption that, since the ornaments were available at one point of time and were subsequently found missing, the petitioner must have stolen them,” the Court said.
It was further submitted before the court that about a year prior to this FIR, the complainant's wife had also filed a separate complaint (NCR) alleging that she had voluntarily handed over 450 to 480 grams of gold ornaments and 50 grams of gold coins to the petitioner for sale, and that he had failed to return the proceeds.
“The two complaints, read together, materially contradict each other and the earlier complaint substantially negates the basis of the subsequent allegation. This Court is therefore of the considered opinion that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law,” the Court held, while quashing the FIR and the pending proceedings against the petitioner.
Case: SRI SURESH @ SURESH NAIK K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.111 OF 2025