Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Sri. Gangadhar B.R vs State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2018

                            1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018

                        BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

       WRIT PETITION No.16885/2017 (GM-RES)

Between:

Sri. Gangadhar B.R
S/o Range gowda,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at, Belasanda Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Channarayapatna Taluk,
Hassan District - 45.
                                     ... Petitioner

(By Sri Pratheep K.C., Advocate)

And:

1.     State of Karnataka
       Represented by SPP,
       Bettadapura Police Station,
       Mysore District - 573201.

2.     Manju
       S/o Mudalagiri gowda,
       Major,
       Malekoppalu village,
       Kasaba Hobli,
                               2




      Channarayapatna Taluk,
      Hassan District - 45.
                                                ... Respondents

(By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP for R1 and R2 - served)

      This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of
CrPC., praying to quash the entire criminal proceedings
in so for as petitioner is concerned in C.C.822/2016 at
Annex-D on the file of Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC at
Periyapatna.

     This writ petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing-B Group this day, the court made the following:

                       ORDER

The petitioner being the registered owner of the vehicle bearing temporary registration No. KA01/TT002965/2015-16 (mobile concrete mixture vehicle) who is arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C. No.822/2016 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna, has filed a petition for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him.

2. The facts leading to the petition are that, on 03.04.2016, at about 3.30 p.m., accused No.1 was driving the offending vehicle bearing No.KA-13-N-9242 (temporary registration. No.KA01/TT002965/2015-16) and when he was moving the vehicle in a reverse direction, one person by name Dasthagir was hit by the offending vehicle, as a result of which, he died on the spot.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner is a registered owner of the offending vehicle, but on the date of accident, he was not driving the said vehicle. As such, petitioner-accused No.2 was not at all responsible for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner - accused No.2 for the offences 4 punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC is bad in law.

4. As could be seen from the records, the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. KA-13-N-9242 (temporary registration No. KA01/TT002965/2015-16) and one person died on the spot. The said fact is not denied. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner-accused No.2 was not driving the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. As such, he was not liable for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 181 of Indian Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short). In the present case, the petitioner-accused No.2 being the registered owner of the offending vehicle has permitted accused No.1 to drive the vehicle.

5. Section 180 of the Act reads as under:

"Allowing unauthorized persons to drive vehicles. Whenever, being the owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle, causes or permits, any other person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 to drive the vehicle shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

6. Section 181 of the Act reads as under:

"Driving vehicles in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4.- Whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of Section 3 or Section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

7. In the instant case, the driver of the vehicle, namely, accused No.1 had no valid driving license to drive the vehicle. As such, accused No.1 alone can be held responsible for the said offence punishable under 6 Section 181 of IMV Act. Whenever the owner of the vehicle permits any other person, who does not satisfy the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 to drive the vehicle, he becomes liable for the offence under Section 180 of IMV Act.

8. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that petitioner - accused No.2 cannot be held liable for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 181 of the Act. But, he can be held liable for the remaining charges. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

i) Petition is partly allowed.

ii) The proceedings against the petitioner -

accused No.2 insofar as the charges levelled against him under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and 181 of the Act are quashed.

iii) The proceedings against the petitioner - accused No.2 insofar as other charges leveled against him for the offence punishable under Section 180 of the Act shall continue.

Sd/-

JUDGE NS/nms