Karnataka High Court
M/S Mahaganapati Stone Crusher vs State Of Karnataka on 19 December, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46390
CRL.P No. 10546 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10546 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/S MAHAGANAPATI STONE CRUSHER,
GUNDYADAKA, NITTE VILLAGE,
KARKALA, UDUPI - 574 110.
REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. DINESH SHETTY,
S/O SUNDARA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT SANIDHYA, KUKKUNDUR POST,
KARKALA TQ. UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. TARANATH POOJARI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. VEENA T.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY KARKALA POLICE STATION,
KARKALA CITY, UDUPI DISTRICT,
Digitally signed by B REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Location: High BENGALURU - 560 001.
Court of Karnataka
2. SRI. MOHAN,
S/O LATE SOMAPPA,
R/AT NEELANAGAR,
SHIROOR POST AND VILLAGE,
BAGALKOTE - 587 120.
3. SMT. SHILPA VENKATESH HADIMANI,
W/O LATE VENKATESH HADIMANI,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NEELANAGAR,
SHIROOR POST AND VILLAGE,
BAGALKOTE - 587 120.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46390
CRL.P No. 10546 of 2023
(BY SRI. VENKATSATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. JAITHRA J NARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT KARKALA RURAL
POLICE AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN CR.NO.101/2023 ON
THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KARKALA, UDUPI
DISTRICT ONLY IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED WHO IS
ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.2, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 304(A) OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Smt. Jaithra J.Narayan., learned counsel has filed power on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3. The same is placed on record.
2. The registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Section 304A of IPC is impugned in this petition.
3. The 2nd respondent lodged the First Information Report stating that the petitioner is the owner of the Quarry and Crusher Unit and accused No.1 is the license holder for carrying on the blasting operation. Accused No.1 carried out a blasting operation, which resulted in causing the death of husband of 3rd respondent herein, who was working in the quarry.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the incident occurred due to the blasting operation carried out by accused No.1 and in the absence of any material that the accident occurred due to the rash and -3- NC: 2023:KHC:46390 CRL.P No. 10546 of 2023 negligent act of the petitioner, the registration of the FIR insofar as it relates to the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law.
5. Learned HCGP for the 1st respondent/State would submit that the incident resulted in causing the death of the husband of the 3rd respondent and offence under Section 304A of the IPC is a Crime against the Society and the same cannot be compounded. A perusal of the FIR indicated that except the allegation that the petitioner is the owner of the Quarry and Crusher Unit, there is no allegation that the incident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner. The said negligence is attributed to accused No.1, who carried out the blasting operation.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambala D.Bhatt -Vs- The State Of Gujarat, reported in (1972) 3 SCC 525, has held as follows:
"(i) In a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C., the court has to examine whether the alleged act of the accused is the direct result of a rash and negligent act and that act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death without intervention of other's negligence. The mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in doing of an act does not establish an offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C.
The act causing deaths must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. The court has to determine whether the act of the accused is the causa causans or has there been a cause intervening which has broken the chain of causation so as to make the act of the accused, though a negligent one, not the immediate cause or whether it amounts to an act of gross negligence or recklessly negligent conduct. The -4- NC: 2023:KHC:46390 CRL.P No. 10546 of 2023 fact that twelve lives have been lost, however shocking and regrettable it may be, ought not to allow the mind boggle while appreciating the evidence. (Paras 10 and 11)"
7. The offence under Section 304A of IPC is the principal offence punishable with maximum imprisonment for a period of two years or with fine or with both. The offence is not heinous crime punishable with life imprisonment.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Madhya Pradesh -vs- Laxmi Narayan and others in Crl.A No.349/2019 after relying on the decision in the case of Narinder Singh -vs- State of Punjab, (2014) 4 SCC 466 has held at paras-12 and 13 as follows:
"12. Now so far as the conflict between the decisions of this Court in the cases of Narinder Singh (supra) and Shambhu Kewat (supra) is concerned, in the case of Shambhu Kewat (supra), this Court has noted the difference between the power of compounding of offences conferred on a court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the powers conferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court. In the said decision, this Court further observed that in compounding the offences, the power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 Cr.P.C. and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby, while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal proceedings or criminal complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is guided by the material on record as to whether ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. However, in the subsequent decision in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), the very Bench ultimately concluded in paragraph 29 as under:-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:46390 CRL.P No. 10546 of 2023 "29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we sum up and lay down the following principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings:
29.1. Power conferred under Section 482 of the Code is to be distinguished from the power which lies in the Court to compound the offences under Section 320 of the Code. No doubt, under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court has inherent power to quash the criminal proceedings even in those cases which are not compoundable, where the parties have settled the matter between themselves. However, this power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution.
29.2. When the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be to secure:
(i) ends of justice, or
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any court.
While exercising the power the High Court is to form an opinion on either of the aforesaid two objectives. 29.3. Such a power is not to be exercised in those prosecutions which involve heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, for the offences alleged to have been committed under special statute like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity are not to be quashed merely on the basis of compromise between the victim and the offender.
29.4. On the other hand, those criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial -6- NC: 2023:KHC:46390 CRL.P No. 10546 of 2023 transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.
29.5. While exercising its powers, the High Court is to examine as to whether the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal cases would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal cases."
9. The petitioner has also annexed a copy of the agreement between the petitioner and 3rd respondent, by which the petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to the 3rd respondent towards global compensation, out of which Rs.10,00,000/- is already paid and the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- would be paid within three months. In the absence of any materials to substantiate the allegation against the petitioner and also having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute amongst themselves and the petitioner has agreed to suitably compensate the 3rd respondent, it would be an abuse of the process of law, if the investigation is allowed to be continued insofar as it relates to the petitioner.
10. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.101/2023 registered by the Karkala Rural Police Station insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused No.2 stands quashed.
-7-NC: 2023:KHC:46390 CRL.P No. 10546 of 2023
11. List this matter on 04.04.2024 for compliance. It is needless to state that the respondent/Police to investigate the allegation against the accused No.1 in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order and the observation made, if any, is only for the purpose of the present petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12