Karnataka High Court
Sri.Mahantesh S/O Sangappa Bannimatti vs Sri.C.R. Neelagar on 11 November, 2024
-1-
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100064 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI MAHANTESH S/O. SANGAPPA BANNIMATTI,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
R/O: HURALIHAL, TQ. AND DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by (BY SRI SHRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADV. FOR PETITIONER)
MOHANKUMAR B
SHELAR
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SRI C.R. NEELAGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: CIRCLE INSPECTOR,
SHIGGAON CIRCLE,
R/O: SHIGGAON CIRCLE,
TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 29.08.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE
& JMFC, SHIGGAON IN P.C.NO.12/2012 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A
FOR O/P/U/S 384 OF IPC. AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 13.08.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)
1. This petition filed under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short,
'the Cr.P.C') is by the complainant challenging the order
dated 29.08.2017 in P.C.No.12/2012 passed by Civil judge
and JMFC, Shiggaon by which the complaint filed by him
came to be dismissed by the trial Court refusing to take
cognizance against respondent for the offence punishable
under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the
IPC').
2. At the relevant point of time respondent was
working as Circle Inspector, Shiggaon Circle, Shiggaon.
Petitioner filed a complaint under Section 200 of the
Cr.P.C., against the respondent alleging offence
punishable under Section 384 of the IPC, contending that
he is permanent resident of Huralihal of Haveri taluk,
having landed properties. He is the owner of Tipper lorry
bearing registration No.KA-27/A-8377. All the documents
-3-
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
are standing in his name. On 07.04.2012 without any
justifiable cause, respondent secured the Tipper Lorry
bearing registration No.KA-27/A-8377 and parked it in the
station premises. When questioned, he did not give any
proper answer. Even though the Tipper Lorry bearing
registration No.KA-27/A-8377 was not involved in any
criminal case, he wrongfully restrained the petitioner from
taking the same. He is also forcing the petitioner to pay
money. Even though petitioner brought this fact to the
notice of the higher officer orally and also in writing no
action is taken. By wrongfully restraining the petitioner
from taking the vehicle, the respondent has committed the
offence under Section 384 of the IPC. The trial court
issued search warrant.
3. The sworn statement of the petitioner and one
witness was recorded. Vide the impugned order the trial
court has refused to take cognizance against the accused
and dismissed the complaint which is being challenged in
this case. The trial Court has erred in dismissing the
complaint. The respondent has falsely implicated the
-4-
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-27/A-8377 in MVC
No.238/2012. After full fledged trial, the said petition
came to be dismissed with a finding that the Tipper Lorry
bearing registration No.KA-27/A-8377 vehicle has been
falsely implicated. Even C.C.No.534/2013 registered
against the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration
No.KA-27/A-8377 is dismissed and he is acquitted. In the
light of the above facts and circumstance, there is prima
facie material to proceed against the respondent and
hence, the petition.
4. After due service of notice, respondent has
appeared through counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced
memo with documents.
6. Heard arguments and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that petitioner is the owner of
the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-27/A-8377.
From the additional documents placed on record, it is
evident that on 04.03.2012 a complaint came to be filed
-5-
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
by one Fakkirayya Gangayya Hiremath stating that he is
constructing a house near Rachanakatti pond of Shiggaon
and in that connection he was standing in front of Sujala
Jalanayan office. At around 11.00 a.m. a beggar by name
Parappa Gurappa Subaragatti, who was handicap was
crawling on the road and proceeding towards tempo stand.
At that time, the driver of a Tipper which was parked in
the tempo stand removed it and in order to go to the main
road drove it in a rash or negligent manner and ran over
the Parappa Gurappa Subaragatti. By the time they
reached spot, the Tipper driver sped away. The Parappa
Gurappa Subaragatti had died on the spot. Even though at
the request of complainant, a rider of the two wheeler
followed the Tipper, he could not note down its registration
number and informed that tipper has gone towards Hubli
side and hence, the complaint.
8. Based on the said complaint, the concerned Police
have registered the case in Crime No.28/2012 for the
offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the
IPC read with Sections 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles
-6-
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
Act. After conducting investigation, the Investigating
Officer has filed charge sheet against the one Mohammed
Jaffer Hiralli (whose sworn statement is recorded at the
instance of complainant herein as PW.2) and implicating
that Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-27/A-8377 is
involved in the accident in question. After full fledged trial,
the trial Court has acquitted him. In the said criminal case,
PWs.1 to 4 are cited as witnesses to the spot mahazar and
seizure mahazar of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration
No.KA-27/A-8377. However, they have not supported the
prosecution case. Even PW.5-Mahadevi Gadaginavar, who
is stated to be the daughter of the deceased Parappa
Gurappa Subaragatti has denied of having given the
statement before the Investigating Officer about his death
in motor vehicle accident. PW.7-Meheboobsab Fakrusab
Nadaf is cited as an eye witness. He has also not
supported the prosecution case.
9. Though PW.6-Praveen Ningappa Shindhe cited as
cleaner of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-
27/A-8377 and he has deposed that accused-Mohammed
-7-
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
Jaffer Hiralli was its driver and accident was caused due to
his negligence, his cross examination reveal that he is a
got up witness. It appears the counsel who cross
examined him was not instructed about the petitioner
herein disputing involvement of the Tipper Lorry bearing
registration No.KA-27/A-8377 and therefore, his cross
examination is confined to the alleged rash or negligent
driving. In fact PW.7-Meheboobsab Fakrusab Nadaf is cited
as loader and eye witness to the incident, he has also not
supported the prosecution case.
10. PW.9-Basanagouda Patil, constable has deposed
that on the directions of the Investigating Officer, he
arrested the accused and he was identified by CWs, 6 to
10 and 12. However, CW.10-Mahadevi Gadaginavar, who
is examined as PW.5 is not an eye witness and she has not
supported the prosecution case and during her cross
examination by the prosecution she has denied of having
identified the accused at the Police Station CWs.6 to 9 and
12 are not examined. No material is placed on record in
the said case as to how the registration number of the
-8-
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
vehicle which allegedly caused the accident was
ascertained and on what basis PW.9-Basanagouda Patil,
was able to arrest Mohammed Jaffer Hiralli. In fact the
rider of two wheeler, who allegedly followed the Tipper
Lorry which caused the accident, is not cited as witness. Of
course, no purpose would have been served by citing him
as witness as according to the complainant, though he
followed the Tipper Lorry, he could not note down its
registration number.
11. PW.11-Chandrashekhar Neelagar is the
respondent herein. He has conducted further investigation
and filed charge sheet. He has deposed that CW.17(P.W.8)
has produced the vehicle before him and he seized the
same through mahazar. However, CW.17(P.W.8) has not
deposed that he produced the vehicle in question before
the P.W.11. As already noted the evidence of P.W.9-
Basanagouda Patil with regard to arrest of accused is not
reliable and he has failed to established on what basis he
was able to ascertain that the Tipper Lorry bearing
-9-
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
registration No.KA-27/A-8377 was the vehicle involved
and Mohammed Jaffer Hiralli was its driver.
12. It is pertinent to note that the evidence led in
C.C.No.534/2013 is required to be appreciated in the light
of the evidence led in MVC.No.238/2012 which was a
petition filed by one Gangavva said to be the wife of
deceased Parappa Gurappa Subaragatti. Though PW.5-
Mahadevi Gadaginavar is stated to be the daughter of
deceased Parappa Gurappa Subaragatti, she has deposed
that she is not made a party in MVC No.238/2012. P.W.1-
Gangavva Subaragatti is the petitioner in MVC
No.238/2012. During her evidence, she has deposed that
she is having one more daughter by name Shivaleela. She
is also not made a party in MVC No.238/2012. During her
examination in chief, a ration card is produced by her at
Ex.P.9, wherein one Gurappa is referred to as her son, but
she has denied that the said person is her son and
Savakka is her daughter-in-law.
13. In fact PW.1 has denied the suggestion that both
legs of her husband were affected by polio and he was not
- 10 -
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
able to walk and as such was crawling on the road. She
has also denied that because of his handicap her husband
was begging. With regard to the involvement of the
vehicle which caused the accident, she has admitted that
on 07.04.2012 her advocate Sri.Ullagaddi introduced her
to CPI-Chandrashekhar Neelagar (respondent herein). At
the Police Station, CPI-Chandrashekhar Neelagar
(Respondent herein) informed her that the Police could not
get the information regarding the vehicle which caused the
accident and therefore, a vehicle covered with valid
insurance policy is required to be implicated and for this
Rs.40-50 thousands is required to be spent. She has also
admitted that she has not produced any document to
prove that deceased was her husband.
14. In fact in MVC No.238/2012 also the Tribunal on
examination of the oral and documentary evidence, came
to the conclusion that in the light of the fact that the
details of the vehicle which caused the accident were not
forth coming, the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-
27/A-8377 was falsely implicated as it was covered by
- 11 -
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
valid policy. The admission given by the
claimant/petitioner therein to the effect that on
07.04.2012 respondent called her to the Police Station and
informed that the vehicle details are not forth coming and
therefore, an insured vehicle is to be implicated and for
the said purpose, Rs.40-50 thousands is required to be
spent and at that time, Sri.Ullagaddi, advocate was
present and he introduced the claimant/petitioner to the
respondent herein supports this findings. After this, the
Tipper Lorry in question came to be involved in the case.
Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed claim petition.
15. Having regard to the fact that the illegal act
committed by the respondent in falsely implicated the
Tipper Lorry in the criminal case so as to enable the
claimant in MVC No.238/2012 to claim compensation
against the Insurance Company cannot be termed as part
of the duty of respondent herein so as to secure sanction
to prosecute him. Therefore, the trial Court has erred in
refusing to take cognizance without sanction and
dismissing the complaint. Consequently, the impugned
- 12 -
CRL.RP No.100064 of 2018
order is liable to be set aside with direction to the trial
Court to take cognizance against the respondent and
proceed against him in accordance with law and
accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 29.08.2017 in P.C.No.12/2012 on the file of the Civil judge and JMFC, Shiggaon, is set aside. iii. The trial Court is directed to take cognizance against respondent/accused and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE AC, CT: UMD