Disposed

K.Siddananjaiah v. the Station House Officer

Karnataka HC26 Oct 2021CRL.P/3331/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed of a criminal petition seeking to quash an FIR under Section 304A IPC. The court directed the petitioners to produce proof of handing over possession of drainage infrastructure and directed the investigating officer to decide on the need for sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. after reviewing the documents.

What did the court decide?

None granted; direction to produce documents for investigation to decide on sanction requirement.

K.Siddananjaiah Vs the Station House Officer — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3331 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K.Siddananjaiah, S/o D.H.Kempanna, Aged about 59 years, Asst. Executive Engineer, Sub Division No.2, Tumkur Division, Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board, Tumakuru-572105.

¶8

K.Ravi Kumara, S/o Kariyanna L., Aged about 35 years, Asst. Engineer, Sub Division No.2, Tumkur Division, Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board, Tumakuru-572105.

¶9

…Petitioners

¶10

(By Sri Shashidhara H.N., Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The Station House Officer, Turuvekere Police Station, Turuvekere – 572227 Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.

¶13

:: 2 ::

¶14

Sri Govindaiah,

¶15

S/o Rajanna, Aged about 50 years, Residing at Shakthi Nagara, Turuvekere Town, Tumakur District.

¶16

…Respondents

¶17

(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP for R1; Sri Dineshkumar K Rao, Advocate for R2 - absent)

¶18

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the complaint and FIR in CR.No.30/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, Tumakuru District are herewith produced and marked as annexure A and B respectively.

¶19

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, through video conferencing, the Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the petitioners’ counsel Sri H.N.Shashidhara and the learned High Court

¶22

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.

¶23

The petitioners are accused No.3 and 4 in

¶24

FIR in Crime No.30/2020 registered by the first respondent police for the offence punishable under

¶25

:: 3 ::

¶26

Section 304A of IPC. In this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought to quash the FIR.

¶27

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the petitioners are the public servants in the capacity of Engineers in Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board. In the town Turuvekere in Tumakuru District, they were entrusted with the construction of underground drainage. After the construction, the possession of the drainages was handed over to the Turuvekere Pattana Panchayathi on 11.11.2015 as per Annexure-C. The alleged incident took place in the year 2019. The petitioners are unaware of the unfortunate death of a boy. Unnecessarily the petitioners have been implicated. Further, his submission is that the prior sanction as required under Section 197 of

¶28

:: 4 ::

¶29

Cr.P.C., has not been obtained before registration of the FIR.

¶30

The factual background is that at the instance of the second respondent, FIR came to be registered as a boy aged about 14 years i.e., son of the second respondent died by drowning in the pond connecting to the underground drainage. This incident occurred on 21.12.2019.

¶31

Now, if the contents of the FIR are

¶32

analysed in the background of Annexure-C, it appears that the entire underground drainage had been handed over to the supervision of the Turuvekere Pattana Panchayathi on 11.11.2015. Therefore, the question arises as to how these petitioners are responsible for the death of the boy. It appears that pursuant to registration of FIR, investigation is going on and for this reason, it may be stated that the petitioners should produce Annexure-C to the investigating officer to

¶33

:: 5 ::

¶34

enable him to take a proper decision and to decide whether the charge sheet can be filed against the petitioners in view of handing over underground drainage (UGD) to the Turuvekere Patttana Panchayath on 11.11.2015. Since the petitioners have been implicated of the offence that appears to have taken place in connection with discharge of official duty by the petitioners, the investigating officer may have to decide whether he has to obtain sanction from the concerned authority before filing the charge sheet against the petitioners or not. With these observations petition stands disposed of .

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Kmv/-

K.Siddananjaiah v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Siddananjaiah v. the Station House Officer

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

Shabarish Vs the State by

Sri. Panchappa Vs State by Hadadi Police Station

Mr. M Subramani Vs State of Karnataka

Mr B Arun Vs Karnataka State Police

Sri M v L Manoj Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Ranganathappa Vs State of Karnataka