Dismissed

Sri Mustaf S/O Maktumsab Rasulanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024CRL.RP/100234/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court examined the trial court's refusal to release a security amount deposited by the petitioner for a vehicle lacking third-party insurance under Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and dismissed the petition upholding the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

Release of security amount deposited before the trial court was denied; the criminal revision petition was dismissed.

Sri Mustaf S/O Maktumsab Rasulanavar Vs the State of Karnataka — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9511 CRL.RP No.100234 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

¶7

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100234 OF 2024 (397-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MUSTAF S/O. MAKTUMSAB RASULANAVAR AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. INAMHONGAL-591126 TAL. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJ MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DHARWAD RURAL POLICE STATION, NOW R/BY. STATE PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶14

CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C 1973, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.03.2024 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DHARWAD IN CC NO.4304/2023 AT ANNEXUREA, AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF SECURITY AMOUNT DEPOSITED AT ANNEXURE-A1 & ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9511 CRL.RP No.100234 of 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present petition is filed for release of the amount deposited before the trial Court at the time of taking possession of the vehicle.

¶23

The trial Court while dismissing the claim made by the petitioner herein opined that the amount deposited by the petitioner under Rule 232-G (2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 with an object of protecting the interest of the claimant in claim petition to satisfy the award, where there is no insurance policy to the vehicle.

¶24

After having considered the said finding in the impugned order passed by the trial Court, it is appropriate to refer the provision as contemplated under Rule 232-G(2) of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which reads thus:

¶25

“(2) Where the Motor Vehicle is not covered by a policy of insurance against third party risk or when registered owner of the Motor Vehicle fails to furnish copy of such policy in circumstances mentioned in sub-rule (1), the Motor Vehicle shall be sold off in public auction by the magistrate having jurisdiction over the area where accident occurred, on expiry of three months of the vehicle being taken in possession by the investigating police office and proceeds thereof shall be deposited with the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in question, within fifteen days for the purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have been awarded or may be awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident.”

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9511 CRL.RP No.100234 of 2024

¶28

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner herein being owner of the tractor, has failed to renew the insurance policy to his vehicle. Therefore, as on the date of accident, there was no insurance to the said vehicle. Having considered the lapse of insurance policy, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate is proper and correct. There is no necessity to interfere with the said

¶29

findings. Therefore, petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR

LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 16

Sri Mustaf S/O Maktumsab Rasulanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mustaf S/O Maktumsab Rasulanavar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Lingaraj S/O Late Maheshappa Benakal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Siddharth S/O Shivaji Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Laxman S/O Nagappa Singannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shabbirmahmad S/O Ismailmahmad Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankar S/O Ramappa Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinod S/O Hanamappa Kothabal Vs the State of Karnataka