Dismissed

Advika Nayana Bhonsle v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2021CRL.P/1688/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Respondent filed criminal complaint alleging rash and negligent driving by petitioner causing accident. Petitioner prayed to quash proceedings citing opposite party's guilty plea. Court held factual disputes on negligence and vehicle damage require trial and are unfitted for quashing under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.7/2021 dismissed with disposal of IA.1/2021.

Advika Nayana Bhonsle Vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1688 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ADVIKA NAYANA BHONSLE D/O K.MANJUNATHA RAO BHONSLE AGE:21 YEARS No.6 [134], 2^ND ‘D’ CROSS, 7^TH MAIN NAGENDRA BLOCK, BSK I STAGE BENGALURU-560 050.

¶8

… PETITIONER (BY SRI.MANJUNATHA RAO BHONSLE,ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI TRAFFIC POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 004.

¶11

SUJAY L.GOWDA S/O LOKESHAPPA K AGE: 19 YEARS No.109/2, OLD No.308 23^RD CROSS, 6^TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560 082.

¶12

… RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI.SHOWRI.H.R, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.B.J.MAHESH ADV.,FOR R2)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7/2021 ON THE FILE OF M.M.T.C.-IV, BENGALURU.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7/2021 on the file of Metropolitan Magistrate (Traffic Court-4), Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC.

¶19

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein, who was proceeding in the motor cycle had lodged the complaint making the allegations against the petitioner herein that on 24.09.2020 at around 2.15 p.m., when he was proceeding in a motor cycle, the petitioner, who was driving a Car bearing registration No.KA-05-MD-4785 driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Based on

¶20

¶21

the complaint dated 24.09.2020, the police have registered the case against the petitioners herein.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of respondent No.2 herein. Learned counsel also relied upon the complaint given by him, on which a separate case is registered against respondent No.2. The police have investigated the matter and filed the separate charge sheet against the petitioner herein and also accused No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 admitted his guilt and made the payment of fine before the Trial Court. Hence, it clearly discloses that the negligence is on the part of respondent No.2 and not on the part of this petitioner. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the sketch, the statement of the witnesses and also the motor vehicle accident report and would vehemently contend that the registration of the case against this petitioner is an abuse of process.

¶23

¶24

Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the photographs, which are produced along with this petition, wherein it clearly depicts that the front right portion of the Car has been dented and hence, there cannot be any negligence on the part of this petitioner.

¶25

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that respondent No.2 had lodged the complaint against this petitioner and another complaint was also lodged by the petitioner against the respondent No.2 and hence, two cases have been registered and statement of witnesses have also been recorded. CW.2, particularly made the statement before the investigating officer making the allegation against this petitioner that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. When the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet, it is a matter of trial and hence, there cannot be any quashing of the proceedings. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court the IMV Report, which discloses the damage caused to both the vehicles.

¶26

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for State and also on perusal of the records, it discloses that respondent No.2 herein immediately after the accident had lodged the complaint and hence, Crime No.58/2020 was registered. The records also would reveal that the petitioner herein had lodged the complaint and the same is numbered as Crime No.59/2020. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the petitioner herein and also respondent No.2 in the respective cases.

¶28

Having perused the material available on record, the IMV Report discloses the damage caused to both the vehicles i.e., the motor cycle as well as the car. One witness-CW.2 Sri.Shashank made the statement before the investigating officer that both of them have sustained the injuries and they were shifted to the hospital. The specific allegation is that the driver of the car drove the car in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the accident had occurred. When the eye witnessCW.2 has made the statement before the investigating officer making an allegation against this petitioner that the accident

¶29

¶30

was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and also in the complaint, respondent No.2 has made the allegations against the petitioner, and also having taken note of the IMV Report, wherein it is reported that both the vehicles got damaged, the disputed question of who has caused the accident is the matter of trial to be ascertained before the Trial Court.

¶31

The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.2 had pleaded guilty before the Trial Court and in view of pleading guilty by the complainantrespondent No.2, this matter has to be quashed, cannot be appreciated by this Court, when the specific allegations are made against this petitioner in the very complaint itself and the eye witness makes the statement against this petitioner that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of this petitioner. It is also important to note that this Court, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot ascertain the truthfulness of the statement of the eye witness and also the allegations made in the complaint with regard to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car. When such

¶32

¶33

being the factual aspects of the case, the disputed questions cannot be answered in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶34

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶35

following:-

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is hereby rejected.

¶38

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.1/2021

¶39

does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

PYR

Advika Nayana Bhonsle v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Advika Nayana Bhonsle v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.Sajeev.S Vs Inframat Alloys Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Chandrika Raj T Vs Mr.E.Mohan Rao

Mr.Stalin George Vs the State of Karnataka

K Nageswara Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Nikhil Jain Vs State by Ashok Nagar

Sri. Nishant Prakash Vs State of Karnataka