Dismissed¶¶47

Nagaraj S/O Choori Hanmantappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2025CRL.P/100214/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS; fatal road accident involving motorcycle Reg.No.KA-17/K-0219; deceased rider Malatesh Nagaraj Churi arraigned posthumously; complainant/respondent No.2 Hanumantappa was pillion rider; rival version that respondent No.2 was the rider; eye witness Maruti; chargesheet under Sections 279, 304-A IPC against deceased accused; police endorsement dated 16.12.2022 on petitioner's representation dated 12.11.2022; Halageri Police Station Crime No.168/2022; High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; NC: 2025:KHC-D:4396; CRL.P No. 100214 of 2023; petition dismissed with liberty to file private complaint.

What did the court decide?

No quashing relief; petitioner granted liberty to file a private complaint if so advised. ¶¶47

Nagaraj S/O Choori Hanmantappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No quashing relief; petitioner granted liberty to file a private complaint if so advised.

¶¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR and complaint in Halageri Police Station Crime No.168/2022 against the petitioner's deceased son Malatesh Nagaraj Churi (Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC) ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶¶22

Court's answer

Considering all these aspects, there are no grounds for quashing the FIR and complaint as sought for.

¶¶46

Ratio / Principle

In view of the investigating officer's endorsement that investigation would be done impartially and the report filed based on evidence, it cannot be said at this stage that the officer failed to take the petitioner's representation into consideration before filing the chargesheet.

¶¶41

Key takeaways

The chargesheet against the deceased is based on the first information filed by respondent No.2 and the statement of eye witness Maruti, who stated that the deceased Malatesh was riding the motorcycle and respondent No.2 Hanumantappa was a pillion rider at the time of the accident.ratio¶¶43
The petitioner has not filed any affidavit of eye witness Maruti to establish his contention that respondent No.2 was riding the motorcycle and the deceased was the pillion rider.ratio¶¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (read with Section 528 BNSS) seeking quashing of the FIR and complaint in Halageri P.S. Crime No. 168/2022 (Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC, Addl. Civil Judge Senior Division and CJM Court, Ranebennur) registered on the first information of respondent No.2, the injured pillion rider, against Malatesh Nagaraj Churi, the petitioner's son, who died in the motorcycle accident. The petitioner contended that respondent No.2 was in fact riding the motorcycle and relied on his representation dated 12.11.2022; the investigating officer had issued an endorsement assuring impartial investigation and thereafter filed a chargesheet under Sections 279, 304-A IPC founded on the FIR and the statement of eye witness Maruti, who stated that the deceased was riding and respondent No.2 was the pillion rider. Holding that the chargesheet was based on materials collected in investigation, that it could not be said the first information was incorrect, and that the petitioner had filed no affidavit of Maruti, the Court found no grounds for quashing, dismissed the petition, and left the petitioner liberty to file a private complaint.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4396 CRL.P No. 100214 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100214 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NAGARAJ S/O. CHOORI HANMANTAPPA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: CONCREAT WORK CONTRACTOR, R/O: OLD - BHARAMPUR HARIHAR, TQ: HARIHAR, DIST: DAVANAGERI – 577 601. (BY SRI G. N. NARASAMMANAVAR, SRI R.V.RANGANAVAR AND SRI JAVALI GURURAJENDRA, ADVOCATES)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY POLICE SUB –INSPECTOR, HALAGERI POLICE STATION HALAGERI, DIST: HAVERI NOW REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD – 580 011.

¶13

HANUMANTAPPA B.M. S/O. MAHESHAPPA BANAKAR, AGE: 23 YEARWS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O: OLD BHARAMAPUR, NEAR LINGESHWARA TEMPLE HARIHAR, DSIT: DAVANAGERI – 577 601.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C., 1973, (528(BNSS)), SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECEASED SON OF PETITIONER I.E., MALATESH NAGARAJ CHURI REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN HALAGERI P.S. CRI NO. 0168/2022 FOR THE

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4396 CRL.P No. 100214 of 2023

¶18

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 338, 304(A) OF IPC 1860 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE SENIOR DIVISION AND CJM COURT RANEBENNUR. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash FIR and complaint filed in Halageri Police Station Crime No.168/2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short).

¶23

The respondent No.2-Hanumantappa has filed first information report on 14.09.2022 and based on that first information, Crime No.168/2022 of Halageri P.S. has been registered against Malatesh Nagaraj Churi(son of the petitioner) for offences under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4396 CRL.P No. 100214 of 2023

¶25

In the said first information, it is stated that

¶26

first informant and Malatesh were traveling on motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-17/K-0219 and Malatesh was riding the said motorcycle and first informant Hanumantappa was a pillion rider. The said Malatesh drove the said motorcycle in high speed and in a negligent manner and dashed to the road side pool katta and as a result, first informant sustained injuries and Malatesh had sustained severe injuries and was taken to the hospital and Doctor who examined him informed that he is dead.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that first informant-Hanumantappa was riding the motorcycle and Malatesh- deceased(son of the petitioner) was pillion rider and accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2- Hanumantappa. He

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4396 CRL.P No. 100214 of 2023

¶30

further submits that one Maruti was eye witness to the incident and he had taken the injured person to the hospital.

¶31

He further submits that the petitioner filed his representation dated 12.11.2022 enclosing certain documents and has made a request to PSI Halageri P.S. informing that it was the respondent No.2- Hanumantappa was riding the bike and deceased-Malatesh was a pillion rider. He further submits that the said representation of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the investigating officer. He further submits that without considering his representation, chargesheet has been filed against deceased-Malatesh for offences under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶32

Learned AGA would contend that the Police after receipt of representation given by the petitioner, have given their endorsement dated 16.12.2022, wherein, it is stated that they will conduct investigation impartially

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4396 CRL.P No. 100214 of 2023

¶35

and filed report based on the evidence. He further submits that the investigating officer has now filed chargesheet

¶36

based on the investigating material against Malatesh(deceased) for offences under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC. In the investigation, the investigating officer has recorded the statement of respondent No.2Hanumantappa and eye witness Maruti. He further submits that eye witness-Maruti in his statement has stated that deceased-Malatesh was riding the vehicle and respondent No.2- Hanumantappa was a pillion rider at the time of incident. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶37

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

¶38

Respondent No.2 has filed first information report dated 14.09.2022, while he was in Government hospital, Ranebennur. In the said first information, respondent No.2 has stated that he was a pillion rider and Malatesh(deceased) was riding the motorcycle and due to his rash and negligent driving, accident occurred and both

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4396 CRL.P No. 100214 of 2023

¶40

sustained injuries. The petitioner has sent his

¶41

representation dated 12.11.2022 along with documents to the investigating officer. The investigating officer has issued endorsement to the petitioner stating that investigation will be done impartially and report will be filed based on the evidence. Considering the said aspect, it cannot be said at this stage, that the investigating officer has not taken into consideration the representation and filed the chargesheet.

¶42

Investigation officer has filed chargesheet

¶43

against Malatesh(deceased) for offence under Section 279, 304-A of IPC. The chargesheet is based on the first information filed by respondent No.2- Hanumantappa and statement of eye witness Maruti. Maruti in his statement before the investigating officer has stated that Malatesh(deceased) was riding the motorcycle and respondent No.2- Hanumantappa was a pillion rider at the time of accident. The said chargesheet has been filed based on the materials and evidence collected at the time

¶44

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4396 CRL.P No. 100214 of 2023

¶45

of investigation. Considering the chargesheet, it cannot be

¶46

said that first information filed by respondent No.2Hanumantappa is incorrect. The petitioner has not filed any affidavit of Maruti-eye witness in order to establish his contention that respondent No.2- Hanumantappa was riding the motorcycle and Malatesh was pillion rider. Considering all these aspects, there are no grounds for quashing FIR and complaint as sought for.

¶47

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

¶48

The petitioner is at liberty to file the private

¶49

complaint if he is so advised.

¶50

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶51

RKM CT-ASC

Nagaraj S/O Choori Hanmantappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj S/O Choori Hanmantappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irayya S/O Madiwalayya Hiremath Vs Shiddalingayyaswamy B Hiremath

Shri. Ramesh S/O Mallikarjun Yallanaikar Vs Shri. Mallikarjun S/O Yallappa Amati

S Nagaraj S/O Late Rangaswamy Vs Smt Shan Khatoon W/O Mohammed Riyaz

Smt Usha Rani W/O S.V. Balakrishna Vs State of Karnataka

Salimahammad Alias Nannemiya Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadev Shekappa Baanad Vs the State of Karnataka