Karnataka High Court
Dhanabal P vs State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11737
CRL.P No. 6707 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6707 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. DHANABAL P
S/O PONNUSWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3/51, PETTUPALAM,
NANDANTAI POST, NAMAKKAL,
TAMILNADU-637 206.
ALSO AT KADABAGERE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562 130.
2. HAREESH REDDY B
S/O SRINIVASA REDDY,
R/AT 2/148, PEDA OGIRALA,
KRISHNA DISTRICT,
Digitally signed ANDHRA PRADESH-521 245.
by LAKSHMI T ALSO AT KADABAGERE,
Location: High DASANAPURA HOBLI,
Court of BENGALURU-562 130.
Karnataka
3. SHIVAKUMAR K
S/O KOTESHWARA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.16, 3RD STREET,
RAJA SHANMUKAM NAGAR,
TIRUVTURU, MATHAVRAM,
THIRVALLUR, TAMIL NADU-600 019.
ALSO AT KADABAGERE,
DASANAPURA HOBLI,
BENGALURU-562 130.
...PETITIONERS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11737
CRL.P No. 6707 of 2022
(BY SRI. AIYAPPA K.G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PEENYA TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SMT. BHARATHI T.R.
W/O LATE ANANDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT 28, 2ND CROSS,
MALLASANDRA, T DASARAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 057.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. KHAN B.I., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
a) CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS; b) SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 29.01.2022 IN C.C.NO.81/2022 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (TRAFFIC COURT-III),
BENGALURU AND ALL SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
ARISING THEREFROM AT ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:11737
CRL.P No. 6707 of 2022
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners have called in question the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.81/2022 pending against them on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-III), Bengaluru.
2. On a complaint lodged by respondent No.2/Smt Bharathi T.R., Crime No.125/2021 was registered at Peenya Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC, against the rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-04-JZ-6021, construction Contractor and Construction Engineer.
3. The complaint averments reveal that on 17.09.2021 at about 11.30 p.m., the complainant's husband, while riding the motorcycle met with an accident on Hesaraghatta Main Road, Opposite Krishna Cake Palace and succumbed to his injuries in the Hospital.
4. It is alleged that at the place of accident there was some work going on wherein, certain water pipes were being laid and since there was no proper precaution taken by the -4- NC: 2025:KHC:11737 CRL.P No. 6707 of 2022 concerned persons by putting the signboard etc., and due to their negligence the accident took place.
5. Charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners as well as the deceased, against whom the case has been abated. Petitioners are said to be the site Engineers, Site in-charge and Project Manager respectively of a Company called Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited (MEIL), which undertook the work of laying pipelines in the newly added areas of BBMP as a part of Kaveri - Pipe flooring.
6. As per charge sheet allegations, for the purpose of laying the water pipelines, a big pit was dug, but no signboard was kept and precautionary measures were not taken to prevent the accident. However, from the material on record it could be seen that a red colour barricade was placed around the place of incident. In the charge sheet itself it is stated that the rider of the bike came in a high speed, hit the barricade and fell into the pit and sustained injuries.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has strongly placed his reliance on the following two judgments: -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:11737 CRL.P No. 6707 of 2022
(i) Daljith Singh Ghai and another v. State of Karnataka by the Station House Officer, Wadi Police Station, Gulbarga District (ILR 2003 KAR 4849).
(ii) Anand and another v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P No.100516/2020) decided on 27.01.2025.
8. It is relevant to extract para No.6 of the judgment in Daljith Singh Ghai's case
6. ' It is well settled that the very foundation to constitute an offence there must be an act or omission on the part of the petitioner as defined under Section 36 of the Act but for the purpose of Section 304-A IPC there must be rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioner which has led to the death of the deceased. As noted in the averments of the complaint, the death of the deceased was due to the slip when he was peeping down through the hole near a pulley to see whether the stone had been tied to the rope. The allegation is that the occupier has not provided safety and protective measures which led to the fall and consequently death of the deceased. This act of the deceased cannot be attributed to the petitioners stating that there was a rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioners. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the degree of negligence or omission is the determining factor to call the act as criminal and in addition to that, there must be mens rea in criminal negligence. On the facts noted, it cannot be said that negligence of the accused was so patent to import mens rea. Mere carelessness is not sufficient to prosecute for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Of course, when he was peeping through the pulley from the third floor towards the ground, and if there was no -6- NC: 2025:KHC:11737 CRL.P No. 6707 of 2022 safety being provided, it is altogether a different act which does not attract Section 304-A IPC and there may be civil consequence for not providing proper measure in safeguarding the interest of the employees or else occupier is liable under the provisions of the Factories Act, if there is violation of any of the conditions regarding safety measures. Patently as noted, none of the ingredients are made out to attract the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Despite the fact that the complaint has been filed, cognizance taken and the charge sheet filed, there is nothing that survives for consideration to proceed against the petitioners since at the inception itself when the act alleged does not attract the penal clause under Section 304-A and the same has been reinforced in the above cited decision of the Apex Court, that the act causing death "must be the causa causans; i.e. the act of causing death must be causa sine qua non".'
9. In Anand S/o Bheemarao Kulkarni (supra), this Court relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of Ambalal D. Bhatt v. The State of Gujarat reported in (1972) 3 SCC 525 has quashed the proceedings in an identical case, observing that even assuming that the petitioners failed to provide precautionary measures, such an act cannot be considered the direct or proximate cause of the accident to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 304A IPC. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied, it held that to prosecute an individual under Section 304A IPC, the Court must establish -7- NC: 2025:KHC:11737 CRL.P No. 6707 of 2022 that the accused's rash or negligent act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death, without any intervening factors and merely contravening certain rules or regulations does not establish offence under Section 304A IPC.
10. Considering the entire material on record and in the light of the above decisions, the petition succeeds. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.81/2022 on the file of the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court - III), Bengaluru against the petitioners are quashed.
(iii) Quashing of the proceedings shall not come in the way of complainant seeking compensation for the accidental death of her husband, before the appropriate forum.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 Ct:ar