The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused of stealing gold articles from a Bengaluru residence, holding that mere knowledge of where the gold was kept, coupled with general suspicion, could not by itself sustain a criminal prosecution for theft. Justice Suraj Govindaraj finding that the theft allegation was also materially contradicted by an earlier complaint concerning the same gold.
Background
The case arose from an FIR registered by Basavanagudi Police Station in Crime No.138/2024 under Section 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The complainant alleged that the petitioner's mother had worked as a domestic servant at his house from 2013 to 2021 and that the petitioner had accompanied her and sometimes carried out work there. After the family shifted to a new house, the petitioner allegedly visited the premises when called for certain work. The complainant suspected him of stealing gold because he allegedly knew where the articles were kept.
The petitioner disputed this allegation and pointed to an earlier complaint filed by the complainant's wife on September 29, 2023. In that complaint, she had stated that around 450–480 grams of gold ornaments and 50 grams of gold coins had been handed over to the petitioner for sale, but the gold or sale proceeds were allegedly not returned. The High Court noted that the later theft complaint, filed on October 23, 2024, did not specify when the alleged theft had actually occurred.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj found the two versions significant. The Court noted that the earlier complaint described substantial quantities of gold as having been voluntarily handed over to the petitioner, while the later complaint alleged that gold had been stolen from the house.
The Court observed:
"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 further noted that the complaint did not identify the date of the alleged theft and that the material on record did not disclose a prima facie basis for proceeding against the petitioner for theft.
Holding that the two complaints materially contradicted each other and that continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the Karnataka High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and allowed the criminal petition.
The Court consequently quashed the proceedings in Crime No.138/2024 pending before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, against the petitioner.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sri Suresh @ Suresh Naik K v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 111 of 2025; Crime No. 138/2024
Judge: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Decision Date: September 16, 2026
