Allowed

Sri. B M Murthy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2024CRL.P/4343/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner sought quashing of proceedings for causing death by negligence where a worker died during welding at his tenant's business. Holding that mere ownership without any specific rash or negligent act attributed to him does not attract Section 304A, the court allowed the petition and quashed proceedings against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Cr.No.119/2013 / C.C.No.1218/2014 quashed insofar as the petitioner (accused No.4).

Sri. B M Murthy Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:11640 CRL.P No. 4343 of 2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4343 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. B.M. MURTHY, SON OF MUNIRAJAPPA, AGE 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT BETTADA HALASUR VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BETTADA HALUSUR POST, BENGALURU - 562 157.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT. SANDHYA JAMADAGNI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHIKKA JALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

SRI. MURUGAN, SON OF SANGOTIYAN, AGE ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDING AT KURUMALLI, KUDAL, KUPPANNA GOWANDER, 18TH WARD, METTUR TALUK, SALEM - 636 404.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 26.09.2023 PETITION AGAINST R2 STANDS DISMISSED)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:11640 CRL.P No. 4343 of 2018

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.119 OF 2013, C.C.NO.1218/2014 OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304A R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for following relief:

¶23

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner herein most humbly prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to quash the proceedings in Cr. No. 119 of 2013/ C.C. No. 1218 of 2014 of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the Honourable Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli against the present petitioner and grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems just to grant the same under the facts and circumstances of the case by allowing this petition and in the best interest of justice.”

¶24

Respondent No.2 lodged a FIR on 23.08.2013 on which basis Crime No.119/2013 was registered by Chikkajala Police Station for offences punishable under Section 304A r/w Section 34 of the IPC, challenging

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11640 CRL.P No. 4343 of 2018

¶26

the same the petitioner is before this Court seeking aforesaid relief.

¶27

The essential allegation made in the FIR on 23.08.2013 was that one M. Raju, who is a relative of respondent No.2 met with an accident while welding the sheets for manufacture of tanker in premises bearing Sy.No.93/6 of Bettada Halasuru village, when the driver of the crane due to negligence dropped sheets which fell on M. Raju, the persons at the spot removed him from below the sheets while he was being taken to the hospital in ambulance the said M.Raju expired. On that background it is alleged that the action is to be taken against Mr. Kumarswamy, who was running the business, the petitioner who is the owner of the land as also against the driver of the crane and certain others.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not concerned with or involved in any of the activities on the property inasmuch as the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:11640 CRL.P No. 4343 of 2018

¶31

petitioner had leased the premises to one Mr. Kumarswamy under a lease agreement dated 15.02.2013, which is much prior to the date of the incident. Even a reading of the complaint would indicate that the business was run by the tenant Mr. Kumarswamy and not by the petitioner and allegations made by the petitioner is only that the petitioner is owner of the property where the incident has occurred there being no particular allegation made against the petitioner to invoke offence under Section 304A of IPC. The above petition is required to be allowed and proceedings to be quashed.

¶32

Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State would however contended that in the complaint the name of the petitioner is mentioned as a owner and implication having made of the petitioner in the incident proceeding that has been taken up which cannot be faulted with.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:11640 CRL.P No. 4343 of 2018

¶34

Heard Smt Sandhya Jamadagni, learned counsel for

¶35

the petitioner, Sri Channappa Erappa, learned HCGP

¶36

for respondent No.1 and perused papers.

¶37

What is required to be considered by this Court in the present petition is whether the petitioner can be said to be involved in the offence alleged against him under Section 304A of IPC.

¶38

Section 304A of IPC reads as under:

¶39

“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."

¶40

A person can be prosecuted under section 304A if he

¶41

has caused death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. Thus, It is required that there is a specific allegation against a person firstly committed rash or negligent act, secondly which results in the death of a person.

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:11640 CRL.P No. 4343 of 2018

¶43

In the present case, the only allegation in this petition is that the petitioner is the owner of the land which had been leased to Mr. Kumarswamy who has running the business. Merely because the petitioner is the owner of the land would not make the owner responsible for any event which occurs in the property which has been committed by third party like in this case, the tenant. Unless a specific allegation of an overt-act is attributed to a person to have committed rash and negligent act resulting in the death of a person no proceedings can be initiated against the Section 304A of IPC.

¶44

The essential ingredients of Section 304A of IPC not being present either in the complaint or any of the document produced by the prosecution, I am of the considered opinion that there is no offence made out against the petitioner requiring to the petitioner to suffer the ordeal of criminal trial. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:11640 CRL.P No. 4343 of 2018

¶47

:: ORDER ::

¶48

i. The petition is allowed.

¶49

ii. The proceeding in Cr.No.199/2013 now pending on C.C No.1218/2014 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanhalli is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioneraccused No.4 is concerned.

¶50

iii. It made clear that this Court has not discussed any opinion as regards the involvement or otherwise of the other accused.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

AT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43 CT: BHK

Sri. B M Murthy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B M Murthy 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

Hyderabad Karnataka Education Society Vs State of Karnataka

K.v.Kishore Vs M/S Rajesh Exports Ltd.

Ms. Neha Bharati Vs Dental Council of India

Srinivasulu Puttur Vs Ms. S Saraswathy

Sri N Krishna Murthy Vs Sri D S Siddaraju

Smt Daisy Jacob Vs State of Karnataka