Karnataka High Court
Shri. Umesh S/O Ravasaheb Jadhav vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5256
CRL.P No. 102694 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102694 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHRI. UMESH S/O. RAVASAHEB JADHAV,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
PERMANENT R/O: PEERAWADI, KHADAKALAT,
TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI,
NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO. C6-301,
RAMKY ONE NORTH APARTMENT, AVALAHALLI,
DODDABALLAPUR ROAD, OPP. BMSIT COLLEGE,
YELAHANKA, AVALAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 064.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH KHADAKALAT POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUOTR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK
KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI
2. SHRI. MOHAN S/O. PERUMAL PILLE,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad
R/O: LAXMI NAGAR, GANESHPUR,
HINDALAGA, BELAGAVI,
TQ AND DIST BELAGAVI - 590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1;
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC., 1973,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED AGAINST PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CRIME
NO.75/2023 BEFORE KHADAKALAT P.S. FOR THE COMMISSION OF
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 288 AND 338
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC, 1860, BEFORE LEARNED ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND JMFC COURT, CHIKKODI INSOFAR AS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5256
CRL.P No. 102694 of 2023
THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED. PASS ANY SUCH
OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT TO MEET
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in Crime No.75/2023 of Khadakalat Police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 288 and 338 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against the petitioner and another stating that he and his co-workers were assigned with a work of fabrications at poultry farm by the petitioner and his father situated at Peerwadi, Khadakalat village which is owned by father of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner and his father did not provide them with any safety measures to complete the work, because of which the complainant and another fell from height of 22 feet and sustained injuries. -3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5256 CRL.P No. 102694 of 2023 The incident has taken place on 31.05.2023 and the complaint has been filed on 20.08.2023. The said complaint has been registered in Crime No.75/2023 of Khadakalat P.S. for offences punishable under Sections 288 and 338 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The said FIR is sought to be quashed by accused No.1 in the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that even assuming the entire contents of the complaint, it does not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. There is no pulling down or repairing of the building of the petitioner to attract offence under Section 288 of IPC. There is no rash or negligent act of the petitioner to endanger human life or personal safety to attract offence under Section 338 of IPC. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5256 CRL.P No. 102694 of 2023 the case of Abdul Kalam V/s State (Government of NCT of Delhi) in Crl.Rev.P.No.1021/2002 decided on 03.05.2006. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate contend that the petitioners even though engaged the services of the respondent No.2 in fabrication work, did not provide any safety measures in the place of work and due to that the respondent No.2 and another fell from height and sustained injury and it attracts the offences alleged against them. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the FIR and complaint.
7. Section 288 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:
"288. Negligent conduct with respect to pulling down or repairing buildings.-- Whoever, in pulling down or repairing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with that building as is sufficient to -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:5256 CRL.P No. 102694 of 2023 guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or of any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
8. It has to be seen whether any offence is made out under Section 288 in the context of the allegations against the petitioner. In the present case, if the complaint of respondent No.2 is taken to be correct, there is no mention of any fall of any building or any part thereof. What has happened is that the respondent No.2 and another who were doing fabricating work, fell from height and sustained injury. Section 288 of IPC concerns itself with a situation where a person, in pulling down or repairing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with the building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or any part thereof.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5256 CRL.P No. 102694 of 2023
9. The respondent No.2 and another who have sustained injury cannot come within the sweep of this Section inasmuch as the petitioner, who has assigned the job of fabricating work to the respondent No.2. Therefore, it cannot be construed that petitioner knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order as is required under Section 288 of IPC. Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 288 of IPC are not made out in the present case.
10. Section 338 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:
"338. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.-Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5256 CRL.P No. 102694 of 2023
11. The reading of the said Section would clearly indicate that there must be some act done by the accused and that act must be done so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others. The petitioner and his father had merely engaged the services of the respondent No.2 or carrying out fabricating work in their poultry farm. Apart from this, the petitioner did not do any act which would be regarded as rash or negligent so as to endanger human life. Therefore, the ingredients of Section 338 are not made out even if the statement of the said respondent No.2 is taken to be entirely true and correct. There is no nexus between petitioner and his father engaging the services of respondent No.2 and another injured and injury being caused to them. The petitioner had no hand in fabricating work being carried out by respondent No.2. In these circumstances, the ingredients of Section 288 and 338 are not at all satisfied. Therefore, the proceeding against the petitioner is abuse of process of law.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5256 CRL.P No. 102694 of 2023
12. In the result, the following:
ORDER i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings in Crime No.75/2023 of Khadakalat Police station registered against the petitioner/accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 288 and 338 r/w Section 34 of IPC are quashed.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42