Karnataka High Court
Sri Irfan Razack vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23299
CRL.P No. 1759 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1759 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI IRFAN RAZACK
S/O RAZACK SATTAR
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
R/AT: 21/22-3
MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
INDICATED IN CHARGE SHEET AS
PARTNER,
XTASY INVESTMENTS
NO.1,THE FALCON HOUSE,
MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI (BY SRI. AMAR CORREA., ADVOCATE A/W
Location: HIGH SMT.SRIDEVI BHONSLE, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR/HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23299
CRL.P No. 1759 of 2022
2. SRI PRAMOD V. RAO
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT: 209, RADIANT LOTUS
KODICHIKKANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL.SPP FOR R1;
R-2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO i) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
08.12.2020, PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.20289/2020 (ARISING OUT OF FIR IN CR.NO.112/2019
OF RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE), THEREBY TAKING
COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING SUMMONS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 AND ANOTHER, AS AGAINST
THIS PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 304(A) OF IPC
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the learned Magistrate dated 8-12-2020, by which cognizance of offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC is taken against the petitioner in Crime No.112 of 2019.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri Amar Correa along with Smt Sridevi Bhonsle, appearing for petitioner and the learned -3- NC: 2024:KHC:23299 CRL.P No. 1759 of 2022 Additional State Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent/State.
3. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, the petitioner is accused No.2. The petitioner constructs a building by name Prestige R R, on Church street and the same is leased out to various persons, one of the lessee is a Pub by name "Beir Pub". The friends of the complainant on the fateful night i.e., on 21- 06-2019 appear to have had consumed alcohol in the pub at Church Street and in an intoxicated state at 11.30 p.m. while they were walking down the second floor have fallen down on the ventilator window attached to the stairs on the window frame, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Succumbing to the injuries gave result to the impugned complaint being registered by a friend, of those who succumbed to the injuries. This becomes a crime in Crime No.112/2019 for offences punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. The police, after conduct of investigation, file a charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.20289 of 2020. The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2, since he is said to be the owner of the commercial complex. Issuing of summons to him -4- NC: 2024:KHC:23299 CRL.P No. 1759 of 2022 is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel Sri Amar Correa would submit that the petitioner is in no way involved in the incident that has happened on the fateful night, while it is unfortunate that has happened, the persons who have died are solely responsible for the incident as they had consumed alcohol to the extent of 70- 80% each and therefore, they could not walk on the stairs which led to their fall. At best it would be the owner of the Beir Pub or accused no.2 who would be responsible for the acts and not the petitioner.
5. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner has not impleaded the victim and it is the complainant who has been impleaded. He would further contend that the parents of the victims have preferred an application seeking compensation before the appropriate forum, any order that would be passed here should not come in the way of the claim made by the parents of the victim before the concerned Court. He would further contend that accused No.1 -5- NC: 2024:KHC:23299 CRL.P No. 1759 of 2022 is the Manager of the property, is also to be held responsible for the act and therefore, the observation should not be made applicable to the said accused as well. He would however contend that the petitioner also be permitted to face trial and come out clean, as there is prima facie material against the petitioner.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. On the evening of 21-06-2019, two people at about 11.30 p.m. after consuming alcohol, in an inebriated condition of about 70-80% alcohol being present in the body, while walking down from the second floor slip down and fell on ventilator window attached to the stairs and fell down from a height of 25 to 30 feet. The allegation is that the window frame was of a cheap quality and was unable to bear the body weight of the persons who wanted to catch hold of the window and save their lives. Therefore, the complaint is registered and the complaint becomes crime in -6- NC: 2024:KHC:23299 CRL.P No. 1759 of 2022 Crime No.112 of 2019 and the police after investigation, filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.7 reads as follows:
"zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ PÁ®A £ÀA.6 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:21.06.2019 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 9-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀgÁzÀ ¥ÀªÀ£ïCmÁÖªÀgï gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ PÀ§â£ï¥ÁPïð ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ©æUÉÃqï gÀ¸ÉÛ, ZÀZïð¹ÖçÃmï £ÀA.55&55/1, 2£Éà ªÀĺÀr, ZÀZïð¹ÖçÃmï # ©AiÀÄgï ¥À¨ï£À°è ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §A¢zÀÄÝ, §½PÀ ¥ÀªÀ£ï CmÁÖªÀgïgÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÉ ²æêÀÄw ªÉÃzÁ Dgï AiÀiÁzÀªï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ CzÉà ¥À¨ïUÉ §AzÀÄ J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj MnÖUÉà ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 11-30 UÀAmÉUÉ ¥ÀªÀ£ï CmÁÖªÀgï ºÁUÀÆ ²æêÀÄw ªÉÃzÁ Dgï.AiÀiÁzÀªï gÀªÀgÀÄ 2£Éà ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ ¥À¨ï¤AzÀ ªÉÄnÖ®ÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É PɼÀUÉ E½AiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ªÀÄzÀåzÀ CªÀÄ°£À°èzÀÝ ²æêÀÄw ªÉÃzÁ Dgï.AiÀiÁzÀªï gÀªÀgÀÄ PÁ° eÁj ¥ÀªÀ£ï CmÁÖªÀgï gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÁÝUÀ ¥ÀªÀ£ï CmÁÖªÀgïgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ PÁ®Ä eÁj E§âgÀÆ QlQAiÀÄ ¥ÉæêÀiï ªÉÄÃ¯É ©¢ÝzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjà QlQUÉ PÀ¼À¥É UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ ¥sÉæêÀiï C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀÝjAzÀ QlQAiÀÄ ¥sÉæêÀiï ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ E§âgÀÆ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 25-30 Cr¬ÄAzÀ £É® ªÀĺÀrUÉ ©¢ÝzÀÝjAzÀ E§âjUÀÆ wêÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, E§âgÀ£ÀÆß aQvÉìUÁV ¨ËjAUï CAqï ¯ÉÃr PÀdð£ï D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉvÀA¢zÀÄÝ, ²æêÀÄw ªÉÃzÁ Dgï AiÀiÁzÀªïgÀªÀgÀÄ zÁj ªÀÄzÉå ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, ¥ÀªÀ£ï CmÁÖªÀgï gÀªÀgÀÄ aQvÉì ¥sÀ°¸ÀzÉà ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À°è J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÉÄAmɣɣïì ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï DVzÀÄÝ, J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°PÀgÁVzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀlÖqÀzÀ QlQUÉ GvÀÛªÀÄ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ ¥sÉæêÀiï ºÁQ¸ÀzÉà PÀ¼À¥É UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ QlQ ¥sÉæêÀiï C£ÀÄß ºÁQ¹ ¤®ðPÀëvÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÃdªÀ¨ÁÝjvÀ£À vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ F WÀl£É £ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀgÀ ¸Á«UÉ PÁgÀtgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ EzÀĪÀgÉV£À vÀ¤SÁPÁ®zÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹gÀĪÀ ¸ÁPÁëzsÁgÀUÀ½AzÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ DgÉÆÃ¥À zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®AzÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ."
Though the petitioner is accused No.2, he is drawn into the web of the crime. It is to be noticed that the petitioner is the owner of the commercial complex who has let it out long ago. Therefore, the offence under Section 304A of the IPC cannot be laid against the petitioner in particular. Section 304A of the IPC reads as follows:
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:23299 CRL.P No. 1759 of 2022 "
[304-A. Causing death by negligence.-- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.]"
Section 304A of the IPC would require two acts by the accused, one rash and the other, negligence. The petitioner being the owner of the commercial complex and having rented it out long ago, cannot seen to have committed either a rash or a negligent act, as is defined under Section 304A of the IPC.
8. In the circumstances, it would become apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AMBALAL D BHATT V. STATE OF GUJARAT1 wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
"10. It appears to us that in a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of a rash or negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death. If that were so, the acquittal of the appellant for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would itself have been an answer and we would have then examined to what extent additional evidence of his acquittal would have to be allowed, but since that is not the criteria, we have to determine whether the appellant's act in giving only one batch 1 (1972)3 SCC 525 -8- NC: 2024:KHC:23299 CRL.P No. 1759 of 2022 number to all the four lots manufactured on November 12, 1962, in preparing Batch No. 211105, was the cause of deaths and whether those deaths were a direct consequence of the appellants' act, that is, whether the appellants' act is the direct result of a rash and negligent act and that act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. As observed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap [(1902) 4 Bom LR 679] the act causing the deaths "must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the cause sine qua non". This view has been adopted by this Court in several decisions.
In Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwala v. State of Maharashtra [(1965) 2 SCR 622] the accused who had manufactured wet paints without a licence was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A because it was held that the mere fact that he allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it would be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the accused responsible for the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of the burners within the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, though this circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out, but was also due to the overflowing of froth out of the barrels.
In Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(1968) 2 SCR 515] the accused who was driving a car only with a learner's licence without a trainer by his side, had injured a person. It was held that that by itself was not sufficient to warrant a conviction under Section 304-A. It would be different if it can be established as in the case of Bhalchandra alias Bapu v. State of Maharashtra [(1968) 3 SCR 766] that deaths and injuries caused by the contravention of a prohibition in respect of the substances which are highly dangerous as in the case of explosives in a cracker factory which are considered to be of a highly hazardous and dangerous nature having sensitive composition where even friction or percussion could cause an explosion, that contravention would be the causa causans.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:23299 CRL.P No. 1759 of 2022 The Apex Court holds that the owner of the premises, in an incident that takes place thereon, cannot be hauled into the web of the crime under Section 304A of the IPC, as he was not doing either rash or negligent act. It is the persons who are present are solely responsible for the incident and they should be proceeded against. Therefore, hauling up of the owner of the commercial complex particularly, to the offence under Section 304A of the IPC, would suffer from want of tenability.
9. In the light of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court as afore-quoted, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue and requires to be obliterated only in respect of petitioner, in an answer to a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., finding that the offence under Section 304A of the IPC is not made out. This, however, would not mean that the family of the victim would not be entitled to compensation for the loss of the precious lives.
10. In view of the submission of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor that the parents of the victim have
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23299 CRL.P No. 1759 of 2022 instituted proceedings seeking compensation, the concerned Court, whichever is deciding the plea of compensation, by the parents of the victim, shall not be influenced or bound by the quashment of the proceedings against the present petitioner, which is peculiar to the facts of the case. Further, even the observation made that the deceased were in an inebriated state would mean that they would lose compensation.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 08-12-2020 passed by the VIII
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru in C.C.No.20289 of 2020 stands
quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in
the course of this order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same would not bind or influence any other
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23299 CRL.P No. 1759 of 2022 proceedings pending against any other accused before any other fora.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71