Karnataka High Court
Murthy vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36742
CRL.P No. 10043 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10043 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MURTHY
S/O MAILARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT BETTADAKELAGALAHALLI,
NAGALAMADIKE HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572136.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KYATHASANDRA PS,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed BENGALURU-560 001.
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. MANJUNATH
S/O LATE MARIAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT KARETIMMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU-572137.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C
NO.170/2024 ORIGINATED FROM CR.NO.97/2023 OF THE
RESPONDENT KYATHASANDRA POLICE FOR THE O/P/US/ 279,
304, 337 AND 338 OF IPC, 1860 AND SEC.187, 192A OF
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36742
CRL.P No. 10043 of 2025
HC-KAR
INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 WHICH IS PENDING
BEFORE THE HON'BLE IV ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in S.C.No.170/2024 arising out of Crime No.97/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 187 and 192-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 presently pending on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.04.2023 at about 1.30 p.m., the petitioner, who is the driver of the offending bus, met with an accident. It is alleged that the petitioner, who was driving the bus at the relevant time was rash and negligent. The bus is stated to have hit the road divider, jumped over it and collided -3- NC: 2025:KHC:36742 CRL.P No. 10043 of 2025 HC-KAR head-on with an Innova car which was proceeding from Bengaluru towards Tumakuru. After hitting the car, the bus is said to have rammed into a tree. As a result of the impact, two male and two female occupants of the car succumbed to injuries at the spot, while a boy who was also travelling in the car sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed in the hospital.
3. Based on these allegations, the informant lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police, leading to the registration of Crime No.97/2023. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet alleging that the petitioner has committed, inter alia, the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that, even assuming the entire prosecution story to be correct, the ingredients of Section 304 IPC are not made out. He submits that the materials on record disclose, at the highest, an offence punishable -4- NC: 2025:KHC:36742 CRL.P No. 10043 of 2025 HC-KAR under Section 304-A IPC (causing death by rash or negligent act) and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC. It is urged that the Investigating Officer has erroneously included Section 304 IPC in the charge sheet, which deserves to be quashed to that extent.
5. Per-contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, drawing attention to the provisions of Section 216 Cr.P.C., submits that the matter now stands committed to the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Judge has yet to frame charges. At the stage of framing charges, the petitioner will have an opportunity to put forth all such contentions regarding the nature of the offence. It is argued that the prosecution materials prima-facie disclose rash and negligent driving resulting in the death of five persons and that the question whether the act constitutes culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC or a case under Section 304-A IPC is a matter to be examined by the trial court while framing charges. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:36742 CRL.P No. 10043 of 2025 HC-KAR
6. Having heard the rival submissions and upon perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that, as rightly contended by the learned HCGP, Section 216 Cr.P.C., empowers the trial Court to alter or add to any charge at any stage of the proceedings before the pronouncement of judgment, if the materials so warrant. Consequently, the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to urge before the learned Sessions Judge, either at the stage of framing charges or even subsequently, that the charge sheet materials do not constitute an offence under Section 304 IPC but only under Section 304-A IPC. Likewise, under Section 227 Cr.P.C., the petitioner may seek discharge in respect of Section 304 IPC if the materials are insufficient to sustain such charge.
7. In view of these alternate remedies available to the petitioner, the prayer to partially quash the proceedings at this stage, insofar as it relates to Section 304 IPC, is premature and unwarranted. -6-
NC: 2025:KHC:36742 CRL.P No. 10043 of 2025 HC-KAR Reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke the remedies available under Sections 216 and 227 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, this petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21