Allowed

Mr. Mohammed Rafeeq v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2022CRL.P/5731/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing an order rejecting the release of a seized bus. The court held that since the proceedings abated due to the death of the accused, the owner is entitled to the vehicle's release, and Rule 19(1) regarding insurance was not applicable.

What did the court decide?

The Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady is directed to release the seized bus to the petitioner subject to production of ownership documents.

Mr. Mohammed Rafeeq Vs State of Karnataka — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5731 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

MR.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ S/O IBRAHIM BEARY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O SULLIA HOUSE, DIDIMBILA, MANINALKUR VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, D.K-574201

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR.S, ADVOCATE)(PH)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2019 PASSED IN CRL.RP NO.131/2018 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU BY WHICH ORDER THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2018 PASSED IN CR.NO.47/2018 OF PUTTUR TRAFFIC POLICE ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, BELTHANGADY CAME TO BE CONFIRMED AND THEREBY

¶16

¶17

DIRECT THE PUTTR TRAFFIC POLICE TO RELEASE THE VEHICLE BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KA-19-B-905 HAVING ENGINE NO.697240CVZ105471 AND CHASSIS NO.359241CVZ107843 MANUFACTURED IN THE YEAR MARCH 2004 OWNED BY THE PETITONER.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC alleging that due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the bike, as a result of which, the rider and the pillion rider fell on the road and bus belonging to the petitioner ran over them due to which they succumbed to injuries. During the course of the investigation, the investigating officer seized the bus belonging to the petitioner, which is alleged to have run over the deceased.

¶21

The petitioner filed an application under Section 452 of Cr.P.C for releasing the vehicle seized by the police during the course of investigation. The said application was rejected on the ground that the vehicle was not covered with an insurance policy and

¶22

¶23

the same was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in a revision petition filed by the petitioner, against which the present petition is filed.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶25

petitioner submits that the proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of

¶26

IPC has abated, in view of the death of accused No.1. Hence, he submits that in the absence of any charge sheet filed against the driver of the bus and also in view of the abatement of the proceedings, the petitioner is entitled to release of the vehicle.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader does not dispute that the proceedings initiated for the aforesaid offences stand abated, in view of the death of the accused.

¶28

The trial Court as well as the learned

¶29

Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the ground that the subject vehicle was not covered with an insurance policy and in view of the prohibition

¶30

¶31

contained in Rule 19(1) of the "Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure", petitioner was not entitled for release of the vehicle. Rule 19(1) of the "Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure" formulated by the Delhi High Court specifies that 'No Court shall release a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or bodily injury or damage to property, when such vehicle is not covered by the policy of insurance against third party risks, unless and until the registered owner furnishes sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Court to pay compensation that may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident'.

¶32

In the present case, the charge sheet was

¶33

filed against the rider of the motor vehicle and not against the petitioner who is the owner of the subject vehicle. Hence, Rule 19(1) of the "Claims Tribunal Agreed Procedure" is not applicable to the facts of the case. The proceedings before the Trial Court having been concluded, the petitioner who is the owner of

¶34

¶35

the bus is entitled for release of the vehicle, since the subject vehicle is not required to be produced at the time of trial.

¶36

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶39

ii. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady is hereby directed to release the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-19B-905 having Engine No.697D40CVZ105471 and Chassis No.359241CVZ107843 to the petitioner, subject to the condition, the petitioner produces relevant documents to establish his ownership of the subject vehicle.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Mr. Mohammed Rafeeq v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Mohammed Rafeeq v. 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

M. Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

H Abbas Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elect)

Sri B Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sreedhar R Vs Anti Corruption Bureau

K S Swarna Gowramma Vs Nanjappa @ Nanjaiah

M/S Gau Gyan Foundation Vs State of Karnataka