Allowed

Sunil Kumar Yadav v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2023CRL.P/1654/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC against the petitioner for rash and negligent driving, noting that GPS evidence showed a speed of 26 km/h and prior proceedings resulted in conviction for distinct offences of assault and false implication.

What did the court decide?

The impugned criminal proceedings in CC No. 584/2022 (Crime No. 2/2022) pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar, were quashed.

Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Karnataka by — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39190 CRL.P No. 1654 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1654 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUNIL KUMAR YADAV S/O RAJIT YADAV AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT: B-902, BUILDING 79 EKTA CHS, TILAK NAGAR WEST MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA-400089.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER KUSHALNAGAR TRAFFIC POLICE STATION REPRESENTED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

MOHAMMED SHAREEF C H S/O HAMSA K AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NELLIHUDIKERI VILLAGE SIDDAPURA, KODAGU-571 253.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.584/2022 (CRIME NO.2/2022) OF

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39190 CRL.P No. 1654 of 2023

¶19

KUSHALNAGAR TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KUSHALNAGAR FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S. 279, 337 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner, who was driving the car rash and negligent manner dashed against the offending vehicle, due to which, the respondent No.2 sustained simple injuries. The learned Magistrate after perusing the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the very same incident, the petitioner's wife had lodged a FIR with the jurisdictional police alleging that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2 herein. The police registered the FIR against the respondent No.2.

¶24

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State submits that, the charge sheet material discloses that the petitioner was driving the car in a rash and negligently and dashed against the offending vehicle, due to which, the respondent No.2 sustained simple injuries. Hence,

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39190 CRL.P No. 1654 of 2023

¶26

the learned Magistrate has rightly taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offences, and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶27

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge sheet material.

¶28

The petitioner's wife had lodged a FIR with the jurisdictional police alleging that on 11.1.2022, CWs.1 and 2 while returning from Nagarahole forest in the vehicle belonging to CW2, at that time, the accused No.2 - respondent No.2 herein with accused No.1 who were proceeding in a Bolero vehicle caused the accident to the vehicle belonging to CWs.1 and 2 and when questioned, the accused Nos.1 and 2 abused CW2 in filthy language and assaulted him and on 12.1.2022 at 5.00 p.m. when CWs.1 and 2 after hiring a cab to proceed to Mysuru, the accused No.3 restrained them from proceeding further.

¶29

In CC No.1259/2022, the accused Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 253(2) of Cr.PC pleading guilty and on the said application, the learned Magistrate passed an order sentencing the accused to pay Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner has produced GPS installed in the subject vehicle, which was alleged to have been driven rash and negligently and the GPS record discloses that the vehicle was driven at the speed of 26 kms per hour. The said document has not been controverted or disputed by the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:39190 CRL.P No. 1654 of 2023

¶32

respondent No.2. Therefore, it is inferred that the vehicle was not driven in rash and negligent manner. No injury is said to have been sustained due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner herein. The FIR was lodged as a counter blast to falsely implicate the Petitioner. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶35

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.584/2022 (Crime No.2/2022) pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushalnagar, is hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

BKM

Sunil Kumar Yadav v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayakrishnegowda P K Vs State by Kikkeri Police Station

Sri. M Goutham Chand Vs State of Karnataka by

Surekha Devi H @ Rekha Vs State of Karnataka

Nazareen Jadababaei @ C M Seshalatha Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Bharath Kumar M Vs State of Karnataka

Mohan Vs State of Karnataka