Allowed

Mr. Pradeep v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023CRL.P/10539/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under CrPC S. 482 to quash charges under Section 304-A IPC read with S. 34 IPC. The quashing was granted based on an amicable settlement where petitioners paid Rs. 6 Lakh each as global compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, accompanied by a joint memo and receipt acknowledgment.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.7003/2020 are quashed with liberty to revive upon failure of payment realization.

Mr. Pradeep Vs the State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:35668 CRL.P No. 10539 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10539 OF 2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR. PRADEEP S/O DASAN KRISHNA PILLAI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS FLAT NO.A 201, N D SEPAL APARTMENT SOMASUNDARAPALYA HSR LAYOUT SECTOR-2 BENGALURU-560 102.

¶7

MR. FERNANDEZ L S/O S.J. FERNANDEZ AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS FLAT NO.B 103, N D SEPAL APARTMENT SOMASUNDARAPALYA HSR LAYOUT SECTOR-2 BENGALURU-560 102.

¶8

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

MR. NARASIMHA PRASAD S/O SATHYANARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS FLAT NO. E 101, N D SEPAL APARTMENT SOMASUNDARAPALYA HSR LAYOUT SECTOR-2 BENGALURU-560102.

¶10

MR. HRISHIKESH NAMBIAR S/O KKM NAMBIAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS FLAT NO.A 102, N D SEPAL APARTMENT SOMASUNDARAPALYA HSR LAYOUT SECTOR-2 BANGALORE-560 102.

¶11

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:35668 CRL.P No. 10539 of 2022

¶12

MR. SATYAJIT RAWAT S/O AJAY RAWAT AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS FLAT NO.D G04 SOMASUNDARAPALYA HSR LAYOUT SECTOR 2 BENGALURU-560 102.

¶13

MR. T.G. PRAMESWARAN S/O RAMACHANDRAN AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS FLAT NO.C 604 KEERTHI ROYAL PALMS BERATANA AGRAHARA BANGALORE-560100.

¶14

MR. MAHENDRA SRIVASTAVA S/O LATE V.K. SRIVASTAVA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS FLAT NO.D 304, N D SEPAL APARTMENTS SOMASUNDARAPALYA HSR LAYOUT SECTOR-2 BENGALURU-560102.

¶15

MR. NITIN KATIYAR S/O SHRI S.C. KATIYAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS FLAT NO.7133, PRESTIGE FERNS RESIDENCY HARLUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560102.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH B.K., ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANDEPALYA POLICE REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT BENGALURU-560001.

¶20

SMT. MANJULA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS W/O LATE MADE GOWDA BEHIND SHAILA WINES SOMASUNDARAPALYA BANGALORE-560102.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:35668 CRL.P No. 10539 of 2022

¶24

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGPO FOR R-1; SRI M.K. BHASKARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7003/2020 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1 ON THE FILE OF THE 7th ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 304A R/W 34 of IPC.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that, accused No.1 who is the employee of the N.D. Sepal Apartment complex, had brought 3 workmen for carrying out the repair of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) and when the workmen were in the process of repairing the said plant they died due to suffocation since the workmen were made to enter the STP without providing oxygen.

¶30

The allegation against the accused Nos.2 to 9 is that they are the owners of the flats of the N.D. Sepal Apartment complex in question and they are responsible for the death of the workmen.

¶31

The petitioners and the legal representatives of the deceased workmen are present before this Court and they have filed a joint memo stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, and in terms of the settlement, the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC:35668 CRL.P No. 10539 of 2022

¶34

legal representatives of the deceased workmen are paid a sum of Rs.6 Lakh each through demand draft towards global compensation, and the legal representatives of the deceased workmen have acknowledged the receipt for having received the Demand Draft towards full and final settlement subject to realization, and they have no objections for quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶35

The joint memo for settlement is placed on record.

¶36

It is brought to the notice of this Court that accused

¶37

No.1 no more.

¶38

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SUSHIL ANSAL VS. STATE THROUGH CBI reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2689, at para 79 has held as follows:

¶39

To sum up: for an offence under Section 304-A to be proved it is not only necessary to establish that the accused was either rash or grossly negligent but also that such rashness or gross negligence was the causa causans that resulted in the death of the victim. As to what is meant by causa causans we may gainfully refer to Black's Law Dictionary. (Fifth Edition) which defines that expression as under:

¶40

"The immediate cause; the last link in the chain of causation."

¶41

The Advance Law Lexicon edited by Justice Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India defines Causa Causans as follows:

¶42

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:35668 CRL.P No. 10539 of 2022

¶43

"the immediate cause as opposed to a remote cause; the 'last link in the chain of causation'; the real effective cause of damage."

¶44

Even accepting that the Petitioners have not provided oxygen to the deceased workmen, that cannot be said to be direct result of the rash and negligent act of the Petitioners and that act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death to satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of offence under Section 304 A I.P.C.

¶45

In view of the above, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. The criminal petition is allowed;

¶48

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.7003/2020 on the file of the 7^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶49

iii. Liberty is reserved with the legal representatives of the deceased to revive this petition in the event the Demand Draft handed over to them is not realized.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Mr. Pradeep v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Pradeep v. the State of Karnataka by

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 Viswanathan Subrahmanyam Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkatesh Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Girish Chandra Vs State of Karnataka

Brainly India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

K. Sunil Kumar Vs State by Bagalur Police

Sri Lokesh v. Vs the State of Karnataka