Allowed

Shantaraj Parashuram Pol v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2023CRL.P/101871/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Bench granted a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash charge sheet and proceedings against the petitioner for offences including Section 304A IPC, holding evidence did not establish rash or negligent act causing death.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in CC No. 3282/2021 against the petitioner stood quashed; the petition was allowed.

Shantaraj Parashuram Pol Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10184 CRL.P No. 101871 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101871 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHANTARAJ PARASHURAM POL, AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE BUSINESS, R/O DESAI ONI, DOR GALLI, HUBBALLI-580009.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HUBBALLI RURAL PS, R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶14

Digitally
signed byVISHAL
VISHALNINGAPPA NINGAPPAPATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2023.10.11
11:26:48
+0530

¶15

AYYANAR SAKKANAN, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O KAKKANJI COLONY, ALLINAGARAM,

¶16

TQ. PERIYAGULAM THENI, TAMIL NADU-625601.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.3282/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC II COURT, HUBBALLI (IN HUBBALLI RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.48/2020) AS AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 286, 287, 337, 304(A) R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC-II COURT, HUBBALLI.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10184 CRL.P No. 101871 of 2022

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.3282/2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 286, 287, 337, 304(A) R/w. Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

Heard Sri.B.S.Sangati, learned counsel appearing

¶24

for the petitioner and Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.2.

¶25

Facts in briefs germane are as follows:

¶26

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. The averment in the complaint, is that on 1.3.2020, the complainant along with others was at the patrol pump owned by the petitioner. On explosion happens in which the son of the complainant dies in the blast. This becomes a crime, in crime No.48/2020. The police after investigation file a charge sheet against several accused. The second of whom is the petitioner, the owner of the patrol pump. Filing of the charge sheet is what drives the petitioner, to this Court in the subject petition.

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10184 CRL.P No. 101871 of 2022

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel Shri B.S. Sangati appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the owner of the Petrol Pump cannot be alleged of performance of any rash or negligent act that would become an offence under Section 304A of the IPC. He would therefore submit that while the proceedings can go on against the other accused, but not against the petitioner, who was not even present in the scene of crime.

¶30

Learned HCGP Shri V.S. Kalasurmath appearing for respondent No.1 though would refute the submissions to contend admits the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the Petrol Pump, in which the gas cylinder had exploded, and would further submit that it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial, as the charge sheet, is filed against them, by the Police after investigation.

¶31

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.

¶32

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass. The incident happens on

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10184 CRL.P No. 101871 of 2022

¶35

28.02.2020, on which a complaint comes to be registered on the allegation that the son of the second respondent was taking a shower, next to the Petrol Pump in a garage, and suddenly the air compressor in the garage results in blast. Due to the blast, the son of the complainant who was taking shower sustains injuries and later succumbs to the injuries so sustained in the accidnet. It is therefore, a crime comes to be registered against the petitioner, the owner of the said Petrol Pump, which is situated next to the garage.

¶36

The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet as well. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 would not indicate any offence that would become the ingredients of Section 304A of the IPC.

¶37

Section 304A of the IPC reads as follows:

¶38

“304A. Causing death by negligence.- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

¶39

Section 304A of the IPC would require two acts on

¶40

the part of any accused. One is it should be rash and the other

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10184 CRL.P No. 101871 of 2022

¶43

negligent. The petitioner being the owner of the petrol pump cannot be alleged to have acted in a rash or negligent for the act of son of the complainant taking shower in the garage which is next to the petrol pump. The issue whether these acts would become an offence under Section 304A of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve in deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of Ambalal D.Bhatt Vs. the State of Gujarat reported in (1972) 3 SCC 525 , wherein it is held as follows:

¶44

11. “It appears to us that in a prosecution for an offence under Section 304A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of a rash or negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death. If that were so, the acquittal of the appellant for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would itself have been an answer and we would have then examined to what extent additional evidence of his acquittal would have to be allowed, but since that is not the criteria, we have to determine whether the appellant's act in giving only one batch number to all the four lots manufactured on 12-11-62 in preparing batch No. 211105 was the cause of deaths and whether those deaths were a direct consequence of the appellants' act, that is, whether the appellant's act is the direct result of a rash and negligent act and that act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. As observed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap (1902) 4 Bom LR 679 the act causing the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10184 CRL.P No. 101871 of 2022

¶47

deaths "must be the cause causans; It is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non". This view has been adopted by this Court in several decisions. In Kurban Hussein Moham-medali Rangwala v. State of Maharashtra , the accused who had manufactured wet paints without a licence was acquitted of the charge under Section 304A because it was held that the mere fact that he allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it would be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the accused responsible for the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of the burners within the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored though this circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out, but was also due to the overflowing of froth out of the barrels. In Suieman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra the accused who was driving a car only with a learner's licence without a trainer by his side, had injured a person. It was held that that by itself was not sufficient to warrant a conviction under Section 304A. It would be different if it can be established as in the case of Bhalchandra v. State of Maharashtra that deaths and injuries caused by the contravention of a prohibition in respect of the substances which are highly dangerous as in the case of explosives in a cracker factory which are considered to be of a highly hazardous and dangerous nature having sensitive composition where even friction or percussion could cause an explosion, that contravention would be the causa causans.”

¶48

(Emphasis supplied)

¶49

The Apex Court considers an identical circumstance

¶50

of blast of cylinder, the Apex Court holds that unless there is direct nexus by the act of the accused, which is either rash or negligent, resulting the death of the victim, the proceedings

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC-D:10184 CRL.P No. 101871 of 2022

¶53

under Section 304A of the IPC cannot be initiated or continued against such petitioner. The said judgment is followed by the Apex Court in the case of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik Vs.

¶54

State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2008) 14 SCC 479. Therefore, in the teeth of the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court, if further proceedings are permitted to be continued, it would become an abuse of process of law and results in miscarriage of justice.

¶55

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The petition is allowed;

¶58

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.3282/2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 286, 287, 337, 304(A) R/w. Section 34 of IPC stands quashed qua petitioner.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Vb - up to para 3.; Vnp* - Para 4 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Shantaraj Parashuram Pol v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantaraj Parashuram Pol 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sheik Sirajuddin @ Siraj Sheik Vs State of Karnataka

Sriramamurthy S/O M Ramayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Amol S/O Vidyadhar Mohandas Vs the State of Karnataka

N. Manjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Santosh S/O Yankappa Baraker Vs Arati W/O Santosh Baraker

Basavantappa S/O Andappa Halakeri Vs the State of Karnataka