Dismissed¶9

Sri.Sharan Kumar N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2025CRL.P/10990/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quashing; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; 528 BNSS; CRL.P No. 10990 of 2023; C.C.No.480/2020; I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Chikkaballapur; FIR Crime No.343/2019; Sections 279, 337, 304-A IPC; fatal road accident 20.12.2019; Bajaj Pulsar KA-50 ED-8855; pillion rider versus rider/driver; disputed question of fact; full fledged trial required; charge sheet; petition dismissed; contentions left open; High Court of Karnataka; Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar; complainant Chikkegowda; deceased Sunil Kumar.

What did the court decide?

The question whether the petitioner was the rider/driver of the vehicle or a pillion rider (with the deceased Sri. Sunil Kumar driving/ridding the vehicle) is a disputed question of fact which would necessarily have to be decided only after a full fledged trial. ¶8

Sri.Sharan Kumar N Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:858 CRL.P No. 10990 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10990 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI.SHARAN KUMAR N S/O SRI. NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT MELEKOTE VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL 561 205

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RAMESH P KULKARNI., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY CHICKBALLAPURA RURAL POLICE, CHICKBALLAPURA 562 101 REP BY STATE PP

¶13

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶14

SRI. CHIKKEGOWDA S/O LATE SRI. ANAJINAPPA, AGED BOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT MELEKOTE VILLAGE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL 561 205

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. M.M.WAHEEDA, HCGP)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:858 CRL.P No. 10990 of 2023

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 IN C.C.NO.480/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.279,337,304-A OF IPC PENDING BEFORE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKABALLAPUR AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.480/2020 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.

¶23

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and

¶24

perused the material on record.

¶25

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 20.12.2019, a two wheeler i.e., Bajaj Pulsar vehicle bearing registration No.KA-50 ED-8855 was involved in an accident at about 11:30 p.m. in the night, as a result of which, one of the persons on the vehicle i.e., Sri. Sunil Kumar expired on 28.12.2019 resulting in a private complaint being lodged by his father - the

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:858 CRL.P No. 10990 of 2023

¶28

second respondent, which was registered in an FIR in Crime No.343/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC alleging that the petitioner was riding/driving the vehicle in which the deceased was a pillion rider. After investigation, the first respondent - Police Authorities filed a charge sheet against petitioner in criminal proceedings in C.C.No.480/20, which is pending before the learned Magistrate.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the material on record in order to point out that the petitioner was only a pillion rider and the actual rider/driver was the deceased Sri. Sunil Kumar and consequently, the petitioner is not guilty of the aforesaid offences.

¶30

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent would also invite my attention to the complaint, charge sheet, statement of witness etc., in order to contend that there is sufficient material to indicate that it was the petitioner who was riding/driving the vehicle at the time of the accident in which the deceased Sri. Sunil Kumar was a pillion rider and the same would necessarily have to be adjudicated upon only

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:858 CRL.P No. 10990 of 2023

¶33

after a full fledged trial and as such, the instant case does not warrant interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶34

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶35

rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶36

As rightly contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader, the disputed issue to be decided in the aforesaid criminal proceedings is as to whether the petitioner was riding/driving the vehicle as the rider/driver of the vehicle or whether he was a pillion rider and that it was the deceased who was riding/driving the vehicle.

¶37

It is needless to state that in the light of the material on record comprising of the complaint, charge sheet, documents, statement of witness etc., the said issue as to whether it was the petitioner who was riding/driving the vehicle or as to whether he was a pillion rider of the vehicle which was being driven/ridden by the deceased Sri. Sunil Kumar, is a disputed question of fact which would necessarily have to be decided only after a full fledged trial and the present petition seeking quashing of the proceedings without conducting necessary trial/enquiry, is not

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:858 CRL.P No. 10990 of 2023

¶40

permissible in the facts of the instant case by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶41

Under these circumstances, leaving open all contentions urged by the petitioner to be decided by the learned Magistrate, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶42

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶43

Sri.Sharan Kumar N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Sharan Kumar N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sachin Patil Vs the State by Basavanagudi Police Station

Aravinda S Vs State of Karnataka

Asif Tambuli Vs K S Nagaraj

Sri Chandrahasa S L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath M S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sandeepa Reddy D Vs State of Karnataka by