Dismissed¶41

Aditya Avinash Karmarkar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025CRL.P/13017/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court declines to quash FIR Crime No.94/2025 under Sections 281, 125(a), 106 BNS 2023 during ongoing investigation; registered-owner/pillion-rider contention left open for investigation; no mini-trial via S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS inherent powers before S.173 Cr.P.C. final report; petition dismissed with post-final-report liberty.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to work out his remedy, if so advised, after the final report is submitted before the jurisdictional Court. ¶41

Aditya Avinash Karmarkar Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to work out his remedy, if so advised, after the final report is submitted before the jurisdictional Court.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR and complaint in Crime No.94/2025 (offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(a), 106 of BNS 2023) should be quashed under the Court's inherent powers, on the petitioner's contention that the deceased himself was riding the motorcycle while the petitioner, the registered owner, proceeded only as a pillion rider. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

While exercising inherent powers, the High Court cannot embark upon a roving enquiry or conduct a mini-trial to test the correctness of the allegations when investigation is still in progress.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Interference at the premature stage would amount to stifling a legitimate investigation and foreclosing the statutory right of the Investigating Officer to unearth the truth based on evidence; the proper course is to permit the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and submit the final report.

¶35

Key takeaways

Whether the petitioner can be held culpable for rash and negligent riding, or whether the deceased was riding the bike and the petitioner entrusted his new bike to the deceased, needs investigation; the Court declined to resolve this question at the investigation stage.ratio¶30
No grounds are made out for quashing the proceedings at this stage; liberty is reserved to the petitioner to work out his remedy, if so advised, after the final report is submitted before the jurisdictional Court.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C., filed as S.528 BNSS): Quashing of FIR refused while investigation pending. The petitioner, registered owner of the motorcycle involved in an incident in which the rider died (FIR/complaint in Crime No.0094/2025, MICO Layout Traffic Police Station; offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(a), 106 of BNS 2023), sought quashing on the plea that the deceased himself was riding the motorcycle and he proceeded only as a pillion rider. With the matter still under investigation and the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. not yet filed, the Court held that inherent powers cannot be used for a roving enquiry or mini-trial, and that premature interference would stifle a legitimate investigation; the question who was actually riding the vehicle needs investigation. Petition dismissed, with liberty reserved to work out remedies after submission of the final report before the jurisdictional Court.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:38087 CRL.P No. 13017 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13017 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ADITYA AVINASH KARMARKAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O. AVINASH VISHNUPANT KARMARKAR, R/AT NEAR LAST BUS STOP, PLOT NO.130, PANNASE LAYOUT BHAMTI, RANAPRATAP NAGAR S.O, NAGPUR, MAHARASHTRA - 440 022.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ROHIT RAJKUMAR KUKREJA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

SMT. SHIVANI AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, D/O SANJAY PAULKAR, R/AT FLAT NO.158, SAMAJA BHUSHAN, ADARSH COLONY, NAGPUR CITY, MAHARASHTRA - 440 022.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:38087 CRL.P No. 13017 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.0094/2025 (PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXUREA) REGISTERED BY MICO LAYOUT TRAFFIC POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 281, 125(a), 106 OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS (TRAFFIC COURT-IV), BENGALURU.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.94/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 281, 125(a), 106 of BNS 2023.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has sought to persuade this Court to quash the proceedings on the premise that on the unfortunate day of the incident, the deceased himself was riding the motorcycle, while the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, was only proceeding as a

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38087 CRL.P No. 13017 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

pillion rider. It is contended that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated.

¶30

On perusal of the material placed before this Court, it is evident that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner, which prima facie proceeds on the assumption that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the petitioner. The matter is still under investigation and the Investigating Officer has not yet filed the final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. The question as to who was actually riding the vehicle at the relevant point of time, and whether the petitioner can be held culpable for rash and negligent riding or whether deceased was riding the bike and petitioner entrusted his new bike to the deceased needs investigation.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, has sought to persuade this Court to quash the proceedings on the premise that on the unfortunate day of the incident, the deceased himself was

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38087 CRL.P No. 13017 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

riding the motorcycle, while the petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle, was only proceeding as a pillion rider. It is contended that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated.

¶35

It is a settled principle that the High Court, while exercising inherent powers, cannot embark upon a roving enquiry or conduct a mini-trial to test the correctness of the allegations when investigation is still in progress. Interference at this premature stage would amount to stifling a legitimate investigation and foreclosing the statutory right of the Investigating Officer to unearth the truth based on evidence. The proper course would be to permit the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and submit the final report, upon which the petitioner would have an opportunity to raise all permissible legal and factual contentions.

¶36

In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made out for quashing the

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:38087 CRL.P No. 13017 of 2025

¶38

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

proceedings at this stage. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to work out his remedy, if so advised, after the final report is submitted before the jurisdictional Court.

¶41

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed with the

¶42

above liberty.

¶43

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶44

YN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24 CT: BHK

Aditya Avinash Karmarkar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Avinash Karmarkar 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

Dharmaraj H R Vs State by Hosanagar Police

Sri Venkataramana Vs the State of Karnataka

Usha Kumari Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Brinda Battacharya Alias Brinda Roshan Vs the State of Karnataka

Irshad Ahamed Vs State of Karnataka by

M. C. Nagaraja Vs State of Karnataka