K.A. Shreyas Kumar vs The State Government Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2017

[Cites 16, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

K.A. Shreyas Kumar vs The State Government Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2017

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                             1


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF MARCH 2017

                          BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

        WRIT PETITION NO.37103 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:-

K.A. SHREYAS KUMAR
S/O. KOTRESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
STUDENT
R/O. KOTTURESHWARA NILAYA
2ND CROSS, MANJUNATHA EXTENSION
SHIMOGA
PIN- 577 202.                            ......PETITIONER

(BY SRI: NAGARAJAPPA S.H., ADV., )

AND:-

1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
    REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
    DEPARTMENT OF HOME MINISTRY
    VIDHANA SOUDHA
    BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
   OFFICE OF BHADRAVATHI RURAL
   CIRCLE INSPECTOR
   BHADRAVATHI
   PIN- 577 301.

3. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
   HOLEHONNURU POLICE STATION
   HOLEHONNURU
                                2




  SHIMOGA DISTRICT
  PIN 577 227.                           .......RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT: R. ANITHA, HCGP)
                            ---------

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD:16.8.2014 PASSED IN CR.NO.366/2013 THE 1ST
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. BHADRAVATHI ON ITS FILE
TAKEN COGNISANZE UNDER SECTION 190 OF CR.P.C. FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 134(A) AND (B), 3, 181,
187 OF IMV ACT AND 42, 43, 44 OF KMMCR ACT AND 279,
304(A), 338 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND REGISTER THE CASE
IN C.C.NO.3121/2013 ON ITS FILE AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT
ANNEXURE-G.

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP on behalf of the respondents.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India r/w 482 Cr.P.C by the petitioner seeking to quash the order dated 16.8.2014 passed in Cr.No.366/2013 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Bhadravathi for the alleged offences punishable under 3 sections 134(a), 134(b), 3, 181, 187 of IMV Act and Sections 42, 43, 44 of KMMCR Act, and Sections 279, 304-A and 338 Indian Penal Code which is now pending in C.C.No.3121/2013.

3. The principle ground on which the petitioner has sought for quashing of the said proceedings is that at the relevant point of time, he was not driving the offending tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA 34/5378. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the registered owner of the said tipper lorry and he had engaged one Sri. Mallesh as the driver and the vehicle met with an accident when it was driven by his driver Sri. Mallesh.

4. The records reveal that an FIR was registered against unknown persons for the offences punishable under sections 279, 337, 304-A Indian Penal Code r/w 134(a) and 134(b) and 187 of IMV Act on the ground that the tipper lorry bearing registration No.KA 34/5378 was involved in an accident on 29.3.2013 at 7.30 p.m. on N.H.13 near Siddara colony leading to the death of one Nagaraj, who was driving the 4 bullock cart. After investigation, charge sheet has been laid against the petitioner, wherein it is specifically alleged that the petitioner herein was driving the said vehicle and was responsible for the accident and the death of the aforesaid driver of the bullock cart.

5. The contention urged by the petitioner being a disputed question of fact cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 Cr.P.C.. No prima-facie material has been produced alongwith the petition to show that at the relevant point of time, the aforesaid Mallesh was driving the tipper lorry and was responsible for the accident. The contention urged by the petitioner even if true, could be agitated before the Trial Court by invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. As the investigating agency has examined the material witnesses and has collected the necessary evidence which prima-facie discloses the involvement of the petitioner in the offences alleged against him, solely on the basis of the oral contention urged by the 5 petitioner, the discretionary jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the fact situation of this case to quash the proceedings. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedy before the trial court if permissible in accordance with law, this petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE *mn/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court