Lokesh Ujjappa Malavalli v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2025CRL.P/100267/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing; abuse of process of law; charge sheet without substantial evidence; false implication of tractor-trailer to claim compensation; motor vehicle accident; Inspector of Motor Vehicles inspection report; FIR 24.02.2020; IPC Ss. 279, 337, 338, 304A, 418, 465, 468; Motor Vehicles Act Ss. 3, 181, 53(1), 192, 146, 196; CC No. 2185/2021 Principal Civil Judge & JMFC Hirekerur; Hansabhavi Police Station; accused Nos. 2 to 4 exonerated, accused No.1 trial to continue; Karnataka HC Dharwad Bench; NC 2025:KHC-D:2511.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 2185/2021 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, insofar as they pertain to accused Nos. 2 to 4; trial Court directed to proceed against accused No.1 uninfluenced by the observations in this order. ¶¶61

Lokesh Ujjappa Malavalli Vs State of Karnataka — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet against petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4 — alleging that the accident-involved trailer belonged to accused No.3 and that accused Nos. 2 to 4 falsely implicated the trailer of accused No.4 to claim compensation — was filed without any substantial or corroborative evidence. +1 more

¶¶58

Court's answer

The tractor-trailer belonging to accused No.4, named in the FIR lodged by his son, was seized and inspected by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, who confirmed the presence of damage to the vehicle belonging to accused No.4.

¶¶58

Ratio / Principle

The investigating officer, without any substantial evidence, filed a charge sheet alleging that the trailer belonging to accused No.3 was involved in the accident and that accused Nos. 2 to 4 falsely implicated the trailer belonging to accused No.4 to claim compensation.

¶¶58

Key takeaways

The investigating officer failed to produce any document proving that the tractor-trailer stood in the name of accused No.3, and did not seize the trailer that was allegedly falsely implicated.ratio¶¶58
In the absence of any corroborative material substantiating the allegations against accused Nos. 2 to 4, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.ratio¶¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench), 07.02.2025 (NC 2025:KHC-D:2511), Hemant Chandangoudar, J. — Three connected criminal petitions under S. 482 Cr.P.C. by accused Nos. 4, 2 and 3 of C.C. No. 2185/2021 (Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur; P.S. Hansabhavi), charge-sheeted for offences under Ss. 279, 337, 338, 304A, 418, 465, 468 IPC and Ss. 3, 181, 53(1), 192, 146, 196 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. FIR of 24.02.2020 by CW1 Iranagouda B. Doddagoudar stated that his father's (accused No.4's) tractor-trailer met with an accident; the seized vehicle was inspected by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, who confirmed damage to accused No.4's vehicle. The investigating officer nevertheless charged accused Nos. 2 to 4 on the prosecution case that the accident-involved trailer belonged to accused No.3, who in connivance with accused No.4 had falsely implicated accused No.4's vehicle to claim compensation. The Court found the IO had produced no document proving the tractor-trailer stood in accused No.3's name and had not seized the allegedly substituted trailer; absent corroborative material, continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Petitions allowed; proceedings quashed qua accused Nos. 2 to 4; trial Court directed to proceed against accused No.1 without being influenced by the order's observations.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511 CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022

¶3

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

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100300 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

C/W

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100267 OF 2022

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100275 OF 2022

¶8

IN CRL.P. NO.100300 OF 2022:

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PRAKASHGOUDA @ PRAKASH S/O. HANUMANTHGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASARIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581111.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SHUBHENDU A. AKALWADI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.25 18:00:15 +0530

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH HANSABHAVI P.S.-580011.

¶16

IRANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASARIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581111.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4, IN CC NO.2185/2021, ON THE FILE OF

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511 CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022

¶22

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 279, 337, 338, 304A, 418, 465, 468 OF IPC AND U/S 3, 181, 53(1), 192, 146, 196 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.

¶23

IN CRL.P. NO.100267 OF 2022:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

LOKESH UJJAPPA MALAVALLI AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. ABALUR, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581111.

¶26

…PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD-580011, THROUGH HANASABHAVI PS.

¶30

IRANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASARIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581111.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶33

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2, IN CC NO.2185/2021, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 279, 337, 338, 304A, 418, 465, 468 OF IPC AND U/S 3, 181, 53(1), 192, 146, 196 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511 CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022

¶35

CRL.P. NO.100275 OF 2022:

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

BASANAGOUDA S/O. RAMANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASARIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581111.

¶38

…PETITIONER

¶39

(BY SRI. M.H.PATIL AND SRI. HARSHAWARDHANA M.PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶40

AND:

¶41

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD THROUGH HANSABHAVI P.S.-580011.

¶42

IRANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BASARIHALLI, TQ. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581111.

¶43

…RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶45

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3, IN CC NO.2185/2021, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HIREKERUR, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 279, 337, 338, 304A, 418, 465, 468 OF IPC AND U/S 3, 181, 53(1), 192, 146, 196 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.

¶46

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶47

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶48

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511 CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022

¶49

ORAL ORDER

¶50

The petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A, 418, 465, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3, 181, 53(1), 192, 146, and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are before this Court seeking relief.

¶51

CW1, Iranagouda B. Doddagoudar, lodged a First Information Report on 24.02.2020, stating that when the tractortrailer belonging to his father (accused No.4) was proceeding from Anavatti village to Chikkeruru village, a bus driver, driving in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the right rear side of the trailer. As a result, the trailer toppled, causing grievous injuries to its occupants, one of whom succumbed to the injuries. The tractortrailer was inspected by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, who opined that damage had been caused to the trailer. After completing the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a charge sheet arraigning the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4.

¶52

The prosecution alleges that the trailer involved in the accident belonged to accused No.3. Since this trailer did not have valid documents, accused No.3, in connivance with accused No.4, allegedly falsely implicated the vehicle belonging to accused No.4 to claim compensation.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 4 submitted that the statements of the injured persons and the IMV report clearly establish that the trailer belonging to accused No.4 was involved in the accident. The prosecution has not produced

¶54

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511 CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022

¶55

any material evidence to substantiate that the trailer belonging to accused No.3 was involved. Therefore, in the absence of substantial evidence, the prosecution of these petitioners is untenable and constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

¶56

Learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State submitted that the trailer belonging to accused No.3 did not have valid documents. Therefore, accused Nos. 2 to 4, in connivance with each other, falsely implicated the trailer belonging to accused No.4, despite knowing that the trailer involved in the accident actually belonged to accused No.3.

¶57

After considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusing the charge sheet materials, the following observations are made:

¶58

The son of accused No.4 lodged a First Information Report stating that the tractor-trailer belonging to accused No.4 was involved in the accident. The said tractor-trailer was seized and inspected by the Inspector of Motor Vehicles, who confirmed the presence of damage to the vehicle belonging to accused No.4. However, the investigating officer, without any substantial evidence, filed a charge sheet alleging that the trailer belonging to accused No.3 was involved in the accident and that accused Nos. 2 to 4 falsely implicated the trailer belonging to accused No.4 to claim compensation. The investigating officer has failed to produce any document proving that the tractor-trailer stands in the name of accused No.3 or to seize the trailer that was allegedly falsely implicated. In the absence of any corroborative material

¶59

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2511 CRL.P No. 100300 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 100267 of 2022 CRL.P No. 100275 of 2022

¶60

substantiating the allegations against accused Nos. 2 to 4, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶61

Accordingly, the petitions are allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No. 2185/2021 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, insofar as they pertain to accused Nos. 2 to 4, are hereby quashed.

¶62

The trial Court shall proceed against accused No.1 without being influenced by any observations made in this order. The observations in this order are only for the purpose of the present petition.

¶63

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶64

JTR Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 92

Lokesh Ujjappa Malavalli v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Ujjappa Malavalli v. 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

Scarpe Marketing Private Limited Vs Anheuser Busch Inbev India Limited

Directorate of Enforcement Vs Union of India

Moinuddin Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt S Anasuyamma Vs Sri S v Babu Reddy

Prabhaiah B Vs the State of Karnataka

K Jayesh Nair Alias Jayas Vs the State of Karnataka