Somanagouda Mahadevagouda Ramanagoudra v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2025CRL.P/100390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench; CRL.P No. 100390 of 2022; decided 10 January 2025; Hemant Chandangoudar, J. Quashing of charge sheet dated 29.06.2021 in C.C. No.2085/2021 (Ss. 279, 338 IPC; Ss. 3, 5, 146 MV Act) under S. 482 Cr.P.C.; discrepancy between FIR and Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement on cause of accident; implication of accused solely to claim compensation; abuse of process of law; accident dated 12.03.2021; motorcycle KA-25/EM3266; Cruiser KA-29/A4956; Saundatti Police Station; Belagavi district.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; criminal proceedings in C.C. No.2085/2021 pending before the Civil Judge & JMFC, Saundatti, quashed insofar as they relate to the accused/petitioners; pending I.As., if any, disposed of accordingly. ¶¶31

Somanagouda Mahadevagouda Ramanagoudra Vs the State… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet dated 29.06.2021 and the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.2085/2021 against the petitioners (accused Nos. 3 and 5) for offences under the IPC and the Motor Vehicles Act should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an abuse of process of law.

¶¶15

Court's answer

While the FIR attributed the accident to the rash and negligent driving of the Cruiser vehicle, the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement attributed it to the rash and negligent riding of petitioner No.1; the vehicle belonging to petitioner No.2 was not implicated at the time of lodging the FIR, which clearly implies that the petitioners were implicated solely to claim compensation for the accidental injuries sustained by the father of respondent No.2.

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of credible evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, warranting quashment of the proceedings qua the petitioners.

¶¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by accused Nos. 3 and 5 seeking quashment of the charge sheet dated 29.06.2021 in C.C. No.2085/2021 (Civil Judge & JMFC, Saundatti) filed under Sections 279, 338 IPC and Sections 3 r/w 181, 5 r/w 180, 146 r/w 196 of the M.V. Act, arising from an accident of 12.03.2021 between motorcycle No. KA-25/EM3266 and Cruiser No. KA-29/A4956. Held (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.): the FIR attributed the accident to the rash and negligent driving of the Cruiser vehicle, whereas the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement attributed it to the riding of petitioner No.1; the vehicle belonging to petitioner No.2 was not implicated in the FIR, clearly implying that the petitioners were implicated solely to claim compensation for the injuries to respondent No.2's father. In the absence of credible evidence, continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. Petition allowed; proceedings qua petitioners quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:431 CRL.P No. 100390 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100390 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SOMANAGOUDA MAHADEVAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDRA AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAULLIGERI, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.

¶7

BASAVANAGOUDA MALLANAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDR, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIKKAULLIGERI, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. MADANALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SAUNDATTI POLICE STATION, RPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.16 05:30:52 +0530

¶13

FAKIRAPPA SHIVAPPA HALAPPANNAWAR AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, R/O. HOOLI VILLAGE, TQ. SAUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶14

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

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THIS PETITION QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 29.06.2021 FILED IN CC NO.2085/2021, FILE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAUNDATTI AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3 AND 5 U/S 279, 338 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 R/W 181, 5 R/W 180, 146 R/W SECTION 196 OF M.V. ACT.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:431 CRL.P No. 100390 of 2022

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioners, who are facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 379, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3, 5, and 146 read with Sections 181, 180, and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are before this Court.

¶22

The prosecution case is that the second respondent lodged a First Information Report (FIR) alleging that on 12.03.2021, when his father, as a pillion rider, was proceeding towards Chikkauligeri on the motorcycle bearing registration No. KA-25/EM3266, a Cruiser vehicle bearing registration No. KA-29/A4956 came from the opposite direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashing against the motorcycle, resulting in his father sustaining accidental injuries.

¶23

The police, after investigation, laid a charge sheet stating that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Cruiser vehicle by petitioner No.1, and petitioner No.2, the owner of the vehicle. Taking exception to this, the present petition is filed.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

In the FIR, the informant has categorically stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Cruiser Toofan vehicle. However, in the statement recorded under

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:431 CRL.P No. 100390 of 2022

¶27

Section 161 Cr.P.C., the second respondent stated that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent riding of petitioner No.1. During the course of the investigation, the twowheeler/Cruiser vehicle belonging to petitioner No.2 was not implicated at the time of lodging the FIR, which clearly implies that the petitioners were implicated solely to claim compensation for the accidental injuries sustained by the father of respondent No.2. Therefore, in the absence of credible evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law.

¶28

Hence, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶31

ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.2085 /2021 pending on the file of the Civil Judge & JMFC, Saundatii, insofar as it relates to accused/petitioners herein, is hereby quashed.

¶32

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶35

KMS/Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62

Somanagouda Mahadevagouda Ramanagoudra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somanagouda Mahadevagouda Ramanagoudra 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

M/S Transvision Software and Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Harish N v Vs the State by Cbi/Scb/Chennai

B L Shastry Vs the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India

Sri Mohan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Kpr Agro Chem Ltd. Vs Raju S/O Dharmaji Chavan

Mallappa S/O Hulgappa Vaddar Vs Smt. Devamma W/O Basappa Ilger