Dismissed

Shri Sharanu S/O Madiwalappa Dodamani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2022CRL.P/102271/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of FIR in a rash and negligent driving case causing death. The Court held disputed facts like drunk driving require trial resolution and the petition is not maintainable, dismissing the plea.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed as not maintainable.

Shri Sharanu S/O Madiwalappa Dodamani Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 102271 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102271 OF 2022 (482-)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI. SHARANU S/O. MADIWALAPPA DODAMANI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: REPORTER, R/O: HAVARAGI VILLAGE, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN: 587118.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BAGALKOT TRAFFIC POLICE STATION REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD, PIN: 580001.

¶13

ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶14

SMT. SHRIDEVI W/O VEERANAGOUDA BALANAGOUDAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: MADALAGERI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG, NOW RESIDING AT NAVANAGAR SECTOR NO.34, PLOT No.121/A, BAGALKOT, PIN: 587104.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1)

¶17

(R2 NOTICE SERVED)

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 102271 of 2022

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET-ASIDE IMPUGNED FIR AND COMPLAINANT IN BAGALKOT TRAFFIC P.S. CR.NO.39/2022, DATED 03.08.2022 PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BAGALKOT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 279 AND 304(A) OF IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice

¶24

for respondent No.1.

¶25

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, petitioner who is arraigned as accused is seeking quashing of the Criminal proceedings in Crime No.39/2022 of Bagalkot Traffic Police for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC.

¶26

Petitioner has contended that on 03.08.2022, respondent No.2/complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that on 02.08.2022 at 5:30 pm, accused caused accident due to rash or negligent driving and dashed against the petitioner’s husband who was

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 102271 of 2022

¶29

riding two wheeler and in the said accident her husband sustained grievous injuries and died on the next date. Petitioner claim that it is a false complaint. In fact deceased Veeranagangouda was drunk and in such condition he rode the two wheeler and dashed against the petitioner’s car and fell down. Immediately petitioner and other local people shifted him to the hospital for treatment. Though he tried to lodge complaint against the deceased, the concerned Police did not received the same. On the other hand he alleges that at the instance of two advocates who deal with motor vehicles cases, the Police have taken the complaint of respondent No.2 and registered the case against him.

¶30

Though duly served, respondent No.2 has not

¶31

appeared before the Court.

¶32

During the course of arguments, learned

¶33

counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of accident, deceased was drunk and he was not wearing helmet. It was he, who was riding the two wheeler in rash

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 102271 of 2022

¶36

or negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner’s car and fell down. The two wheeler was also not having insurance. The deceased was not having driving license and other vehicular documents. He would further submits that the CCTV Camera at the place of occurrence have covered the incident and they may be verified. Without taking into consideration these aspects, the concerned Police have falsely registered the case against him and sought to quash the proceedings.

¶37

Heard the arguments of both sides and perused

¶38

the records.

¶39

On the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.2, the concerned Police have registered the case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 304-A of IPC, alleging that it was the petitioner who was driving his car in a rash or negligent matter and dashed against the deceased who was riding the two wheeler. Petitioner contended that it was the deceased who was riding the two wheeler in a rash or

¶40

¶41

CRL.P No. 102271 of 2022

¶42

negligent manner and in fact he was drunk and these aspects are not appreciated by the concerned Police and they were not ready to receive the complaint filed by him and therefore he has sent the complaint through post.

¶43

Whether the deceased was drunk and he was riding the two wheeler in a rash or negligent manner and the two wheeler rider was not having proper vehicular documents such as the insurance, driving license and etc.,

¶44

are the matters to be decided at the trial. These are the defense, which the petitioner is at liberty to take at trial. In the complaint the respondent No.2 has stated that when she first met her husband at the hospital, he was not speaking. However, later on when she enquired, she came to know that it was the petitioner who caused the accident and therefore she named him as accused.

¶45

It is pertinent to note that petitioner admitted

¶46

that his vehicle is also involved in the accident, however it was the deceased who came in rash or negligent manner and dashed against the bumper of his car and in fact he

¶47

¶48

CRL.P No. 102271 of 2022

¶49

was the person who shifted the injured to the hospital. Whether the case put forth by the prosecution or the defense which the petitioner is talking are the correct versions of the instance, is a matter to be decided, after recording of the evidence at the trial. At this stage the investigating officer can not be prevented from conducting the investigation to arrive at the truth of the matter. If at all the deceased was drunk, then certainly the said fact would be noted in the medical record by the medical officer. At this stage of considering the petition under Section 484–A of Cr.P.C, this Court can not go into and decide the disputed question of facts. Therefore I hold that the petition is not maintainable and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, is hereby

¶52

dismissed .

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

Shri Sharanu S/O Madiwalappa Dodamani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sharanu S/O Madiwalappa Dodamani 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

Shri.Naseem Khan S/O Kashim Khan Vs Smt.B.B.Khuteja Nasim Khan

Sri D. Venkat Krishna Reddi Vs the State of Karnataka

Noorjahan W/O Yaseen Dargah Vs the State of Karnataka

Raju S/O Basappa Kali, Vs Shanta W/O Vasanth Bevinamatti

Saleem a Nadaf S/O Alla Bhakshi Nadaf Vs the Karnataka State Police

The Manager/ Secretary Kisan Krishi Seva Sangh, Vs the State of Karnataka