United India Insurance Company Limited vs Smt.Krishnaveni on 5 October, 2015
In State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar, AIR 2009 SC 1621, referred to above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has defined "negligence", as follows :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 86 (0.49 seconds)Documents citing
State Of Karnataka vs Muralidhar on 16 March, 2009
Satya Prakash vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 12 May, 2009
9. Now coming to the order of sentence, Ld. counsel for
13 C.A. No.: 58/08
the appellant has argued that Ld. MM has not taken into
consideration the mandatory provisions of law contained under
section 360 Cr.P.C. as well as section 3 and 4 of the Probation
of Offenders Act. Recently in a case titled as State of
Karnataka Vs. Muralidhar (2009 IV AD ( S.C.)1) , the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed that :
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Kamlesh And Others on 15 March, 2010
In State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar's case (supra),
Hon'ble the Supreme Court opined on the words `rashness' and `negligence' stating
therein that `rashness' means doing an act with consciousness of a risk that evil
consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. `Negligence' is a
FAO No. 1732 of 2005 [8]
breach of duty imposed by law. `Rashness' consists in hazarding a dangerous or
wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and it may cause injury.
State vs . Suresh Prasad on 29 April, 2019
12. "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton
act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The
criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act
with recklessness, or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal
negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or
failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to
guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in
particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the
charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to
have adopted. (AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1621 "State of
Karnataka v. Muralidhar")
Pappu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 July, 2019
In the case of Thangasamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 2010 decided on 20.02.2019, we have rejected similar contentions in relation to a vehicular accident case after taking note of several decisions of this Court on the principles concerning just and adequate punishment in such cases, including those in Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra: (2012) 2 SCC 648; State of M.P. v. Ghansyam Singh: (2003) 8 SCC 13; Dalbir Singh v. State of Haryana: (2000) 5 SCC 82; and State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar : (2009) 4 SCC 463. The same principles relating to just and adequate punishment do apply to the present case too; and we find no reason to reduce the punishment awarded or to extend the benefit of probation where a 15 year old boy lost his life due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck by the appellant and where, after causing the accident, the appellant fled from the site and was surrendered by his commandant more than 3 weeks later."
State vs . Anuj Yadav on 6 September, 2019
10. "Rashness" consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton
act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury. The
criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act
with recklessness, or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal neg-
ligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to
exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard
against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particu-
lar, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge
has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have
adopted. (AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1621 "State of Karnataka v.
Muralidhar")
Shivam Chauhan & Anr. vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 5 September, 2018
22. A case of such nature cannot be treated as merely a
private dispute between two individuals - not the least for this
court to exercise its inherent power to inhibit further judicial
process. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC, though
couched in terms of "power" is actually a responsibility which
has to be discharged carefully bearing in mind the guiding
principles and to "secure the ends of justice" in which exercise
Crl. M.C. No.2759/2018 Page 15 of 17
societal interest must always be paramount. The liberal
attitude in quashing such cases as of death or serious hurt due
to rash or negligent acts would be, borrowing the expression
from Muralidhar (supra), "result wise counter productive in
the long run and against societal interest" and be in the teeth
of the guidelines declared in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra).
Naresh Shah @ Naresh Gupta & Anr. vs State & Ors. on 25 October, 2018
22. A case of such nature cannot be treated as
merely a private dispute between two individuals - not
the least for this court to exercise its inherent power to
inhibit further judicial process. The jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.PC, though couched in terms of
"power" is actually a responsibility which has to be
discharged carefully bearing in mind the guiding
principles and to "secure the ends of justice" in which
exercise societal interest must always be paramount.
The liberal attitude in quashing such cases as of death
Crl. M.C. No.5404/2018 Page 5 of 6
or serious hurt due to rash or negligent acts would be,
borrowing the expression from Muralidhar (supra),
"result wise counter productive in the long run and
against societal interest" and be in the teeth of the
guidelines declared in Parbatbhai Aahir (supra).
State vs . Bhure Lal Sharma & Ors. on 1 February, 2020
(AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1621
"State of Karnataka v. Muralidhar")