Mr. Nagaraj C R Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:51966 CRL.P No. 16280 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16280 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. NAGARAJ C R S/O. RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: VETERINARY DOCTOR RESIDING AT VIDYANAGARA, YELUKOTE LAYOUT, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577502

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GANDASI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶14

SHIVAKUMAR M. S/O. LATE MARULASIDDAIAH M., AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT SIRIGERE, BARAMASAGARA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -577541

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

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

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:51966 CRL.P No. 16280 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2575/2022 (CR.NO.120/2022) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 304(A) OF IPC AND SEC.181, 196 OF IMV ACT 1988 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 GANDASI P.S. AND NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C ARASIKERE HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶24

High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record.

¶25

Petitioner is seeking to quash the criminal

¶26

proceedings in CC.No.2575/2022 pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Arasikere, Hassan District.

¶27

Charge sheet is filed against the

¶28

petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:51966 CRL.P No. 16280 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Section 279 and 304A of IPC and under Sections 181, 196

¶32

of IMV Act, 1988.

¶33

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, the Tribunal has given a finding that the claimants have not proved that it is the petitioner herein who drove the car as on the date of accident or the accident was caused due to his rash and negligent driving.

¶34

Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahmood Ali and Others Vs. State of U.P and Others reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 613 : 2023 INSC 684 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely as well as many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:51966 CRL.P No. 16280 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Claim petition is filed seeking compensation,

¶38

wherein, the Tribunal relying on Ex.R3, certified copy of

¶39

the photos, observed that the deceased himself drove the car in question as on the date of accident in a rash and

¶40

negligent manner and he is responsible for the accident. Claim petition was dismissed on that ground.

¶41

The criminal proceedings are instituted by the prosecution. On collecting the materials during investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The findings recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased is in relation to awarding compensation in the said case. The prosecution is not a party before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal and therefore, based on the finding given by the MACT, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that it was the deceased himself who was driving the vehicle or that the accused is not at all responsible for the accident. Moreover, it is the submission of the learned HCGP that there are two

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:51966 CRL.P No. 16280 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

eyewitnesses to the incident cited as CW2 and CW3. In

¶46

that view of the matter, the grounds urged by the petitioner cannot be accepted to quash the proceedings. Petitioner can place the relevant material before the trial

¶47

Court in support of defence evidence, at the appropriate

¶48

stage. With that liberty, petition is dismissed .

¶49