Allowed

Girish S/O Doddabasappa Tatti v. State by Raibag Police Station

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2024CRL.P/101079/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by an accused male, claiming ownership disputes and missing RTI documents regarding the vehicle involved in a traffic accident. The High Court allowed the petition, holding the accused did not require trial to establish defense, and quashed proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings initiated against the petitioner as accused No. 4 in C.C.No.3368/2022 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibhag are quashed.

Girish S/O Doddabasappa Tatti Vs State by Raibag Police… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:11496 CRL.P No. 101079 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101079 OF 2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

GIRISH S/O DODDABASAPPA TATTI AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: PETEBAN, AT POST: LAKSHMISHWARA DISTRICT GADAG.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. C.S SHETTAR, SMT. KAVYA SHETTAR AND SRI. AKASH R. NAIK, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY RAIBAG POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶15

BHARATHI Location:HIGH H M COURT OFKARNATAKA

¶16

MUREPPA S/O LAKAPPA BORAGOUD AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: FARMER, R/O: NIPANAL TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI 591222.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE-SHEET IN CRIME NO.189/2021 OF RAIBAG P.S. AND ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN CC NO.3368/2022 INCLUDING ORDER DATED 08.12.2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 279, 338, 304(A), OF IPC AND 3, R/W 181, 5, R/W 180, 146, R/W 196, 129, R/W 177 OF M.V. ACT 1988 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.C.J AND JMFC, RAIBAG, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATED TO THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4.

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11496 CRL.P No. 101079 of 2023

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by petitioner –accused No.4 praying to quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings in C.C.No.3368/2022 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibhag registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304(A) of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as to “IPC” for brevity) and Sections3 read with Section 181, 5 read with Section 180, 146 read with Section 196, 129 read with Section 177 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein after referred as to “M.V. Act” for brevity).

¶25

A complaint came to be registered by one Sri

¶26

Mureppa Boragoud and on that basis case came to be registered in Crime No.189/2021 of Raibhag Police Station for offence punsihabel under Sections 279, 337 304(A) of IPC against one Gangappa Pirappa Wadeyar (accused

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11496 CRL.P No. 101079 of 2023

¶28

No.1). The police after investigation have filed charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304(A) of IPC and Sections 3 read with Section 181, Section 5 read with Sections 180, 146, 196, 129 and 177 of M.V. Act. In the said charge sheet petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.4. The accusation against the petitioner –accused No.4 is that he is registered owner of motor vehicle bearing No.KA-26-J-4329 (Chessis Number: DMFBLA03922 and Engine Number:DUMBLA31615) and he gave his vehicle to a person who was not having driving license and it was not insured and he is alleged to have committed offence under Section 5 read with Section 180 and 146 read with Section 196 of the M.V Act. The petitioner –accused No.4 sought quashing of proceedings registered against him based on the charge sheet pending in C.C.No.3368/2022 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Baibhag.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner – accused No.4 and learned High Court Government Pleader

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11496 CRL.P No. 101079 of 2023

¶31

for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner –accused No.4 would contend that he is not owner of the vehicle

¶33

involved in the accident bearing registered No. KA-26-J4329. He submits that the petitioner -accused No.4 on receipt of the notice from the Police, made an application under RTI to RTO, Gadag to furnish Form No.29 and 30 and receipt of Form No.21 and 22 and insurance policy. He submits that the RTO, Gadag on his application gave endorsement that file pertaining to the same is missing in the office and they have lodged the case in Gadag Rural Police Station. He further submits that that the chessis number in R.C. which he has obtained on 16.11.2021 and chessis number in R.C produced along with charge sheet are different. He submits that he disputes that petitioner

¶34

–accused No.4 is owner of the KA No.26-J-4329 and in the absence of the said documents i.e. Form No.29 and 30 and other documents sought from the RTO, Gadag he is not

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11496 CRL.P No. 101079 of 2023

¶36

able to establish the said aspect before the trial Court. On these grounds, he prays for quashing of the proceedings.

¶37

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State would contend that name of this petitioner –accused No.4 has been entered as registered owner in B-register extract and therefore, he has been arrayed as accused No.4. On these grounds she prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶38

Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the materials placed on record.

¶39

The name of the petitioner –accused No.4 was not mentioned in the complainant and FIR. His name came to be inserted in the charge sheet only on the ground that his name is appeared as registered owner in B-register extract. On comparing the chessis number in B-register extract produced by the petitioner and produced along with charge sheet, the chessis number are different. The chessis number which has been mentioned in B- register extract dated 16.11.2021 obtained by the

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11496 CRL.P No. 101079 of 2023

¶41

petitioner has been subsequently changed in the B- register extract obtained by the police dated 16.08.2022. Based on the report of the RTO, Chikkodi. What was basis for the RTO, Chikkodi to intimate the RTO, Gadag to change the chessis number has not been forthcoming from the said endorsement issued by the RTO, Gadag dated 14.09.2022. The petitioner seriously disputes that he is the registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No.KA26-J-4329. The petitioner –accused No.4 requires Form No.29, 30 and other documents which he is sought under RTI to establish his contention that he is not registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The said documents are not furnished to the petitioner even though he made an application under RTI on the ground that the said file is missing and police complaint has been filed by RTO, Gadag with Gadag Rural Police Station. In the absence of those documents it is difficult for petitioner to establish his contention that he is not registered owner of KA No.26-J-4329 which is involved in the accident. As the only allegation/accusation against him is giving his vehicle

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:11496 CRL.P No. 101079 of 2023

¶43

to an unauthorised person and it is not insured. Considering the said aspect the petitioner undergoing ordeal of trial to establish his defence is not required in the

¶44

absence of documents which are not furnished to him.

¶45

The petitioner –accused No.4 has made out

¶46

grounds for quashing proceedings against him.

¶47

In the result, the following

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i) The petition is allowed.

¶50

ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner –accused No.4 in C.C.No.3368/2022 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibhag are quashed.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

DSP CT:CNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Girish S/O Doddabasappa Tatti v. State by Raibag Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish S/O Doddabasappa Tatti v. State by Raibag Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakrappa S/O. Yamanappa Valmiki Vs the State of Karnataka

The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Kotresh S/O Malkappa Horiholi

Kasturi W/O Ashok @ Ashokumar Hiremath Vs Siddappa S/O Ningappa Gaddad

Saleem S/O Maktumsab Megalamani Alias Myagalmani Vs the State of Karnataka

Anita W/O. Sachin Bhopale Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Suma H M W/O Girish Patil Vs the District Appropriate Authority (Daa)-P.C