Karnataka High Court
Prakashgouda Alias Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 7 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511
CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100300 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100267 OF 2022
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100275 OF 2022
IN CRL.P. NO.100300 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
PRAKASHGOUDA @ PRAKASH
S/O. HANUMANTHGOUDA PATIL,
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BASARIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581111.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHUBHENDU A. AKALWADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Digitally signed by B
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THROUGH HANSABHAVI P.S.-580011.
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.25
18:00:15 +0530 2. IRANAGOUDA
S/O. BASANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BASARIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4, IN CC NO.2185/2021, ON THE FILE OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511
CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 279, 337, 338, 304A, 418, 465, 468 OF IPC
AND U/S 3, 181, 53(1), 192, 146, 196 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.
IN CRL.P. NO.100267 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
LOKESH UJJAPPA MALAVALLI
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. ABALUR, TQ. HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581111.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD-580011,
THROUGH HANASABHAVI PS.
2. IRANAGOUDA
S/O. BASANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BASARIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2, IN CC NO.2185/2021, ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 279, 337, 338, 304A, 418, 465, 468 OF IPC
AND U/S 3, 181, 53(1), 192, 146, 196 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511
CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022
CRL.P. NO.100275 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
BASANAGOUDA
S/O. RAMANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BASARIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581111.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.H.PATIL AND SRI. HARSHAWARDHANA M.PATIL,
ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD THROUGH
HANSABHAVI P.S.-580011.
2. IRANAGOUDA
S/O. BASANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BASARIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR,
DIST. HAVERI-581111.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3, IN CC NO.2185/2021, ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 279, 337, 338, 304A, 418, 465, 468 OF IPC
AND U/S 3, 181, 53(1), 192, 146, 196 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511
CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022
CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A, 418, 465, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3, 181, 53(1), 192, 146, and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are before this Court seeking relief.
2. CW1, Iranagouda B. Doddagoudar, lodged a First Information Report on 24.02.2020, stating that when the tractor- trailer belonging to his father (accused No.4) was proceeding from Anavatti village to Chikkeruru village, a bus driver, driving in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the right rear side of the trailer. As a result, the trailer toppled, causing grievous injuries to its occupants, one of whom succumbed to the injuries. The tractor- trailer was inspected by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, who opined that damage had been caused to the trailer. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet arraigning the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4.
3. The prosecution alleges that the trailer involved in the accident belonged to accused No.3. Since this trailer did not have valid documents, accused No.3, in connivance with accused No.4, allegedly falsely implicated the vehicle belonging to accused No.4 to claim compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that the statements of the injured persons and the IMV report clearly establish that the trailer belonging to accused No.4 was involved in the accident. The prosecution has not produced -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511 CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022 any material evidence to substantiate that the trailer belonging to accused No.3 was involved. Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence, the prosecution of these petitioners is untenable and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State submitted that the trailer belonging to accused No.3 did not have valid documents. Therefore, accused Nos. 2 to 4, in connivance with each other, falsely implicated the trailer belonging to accused No.4, despite knowing that the trailer involved in the accident actually belonged to accused No.3.
6. After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the charge sheet materials, the following observations are made:
7. The son of accused No.4 lodged a First Information Report stating that the tractor-trailer belonging to accused No.4 was involved in the accident. The said tractor-trailer was seized and inspected by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, who confirmed the presence of damage to the vehicle belonging to accused No.4. However, the investigating officer, without any substantial evidence, filed a charge sheet alleging that the trailer belonging to accused No.3 was involved in the accident and that accused Nos. 2 to 4 falsely implicated the trailer belonging to accused No.4 to claim compensation. The investigating officer has failed to produce any document proving that the tractor-trailer stands in the name of accused No.3 or to seize the trailer that was allegedly falsely implicated. In the absence of any corroborative material -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511 CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022 substantiating the allegations against accused Nos. 2 to 4, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
8. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 2185/2021 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, insofar as they pertain to accused Nos. 2 to 4, are hereby quashed.
9. The trial Court shall proceed against accused No.1 without being influenced by any observations made in this order. The observations in this order are only for the purpose of the present petition.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92