Smt N Manjula Babu Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14989 CRL.P No. 6677 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6677 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶6

528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. N. MANJULA BABU W/O SRI. M. BABU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.3962, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, 17^TH E CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 070.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SUBRAHMANYA KAUSHIK R.S. FOR SRI. SRINIVAS S.V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

SMT. ANURADHA D. W/O R. DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.706, 1^ST FLOOR, 25^TH MAIN ROAD,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14989 CRL.P No. 6677 of 2023

¶16

SARAKKI EXTENSION, J.P. NAGARA 6^TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. ULLAS KUMAR JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.4/2023 REGISTERED BY PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO PENDING BEFORE THE XXX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304-A OF INDIAL PENAL CODE, 1860.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR and further proceedings in Crime No.4/2023 registered at Puttenahalli Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, pending before the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14989 CRL.P No. 6677 of 2023

¶25

2. The first informant by name Smt. Anuradha D.,

¶26

set the law into motion alleging that she is a tenant under the petitioner residing in a building situated at No.706, 25^th Main Road, Sarakki Extension, J.P.Nagar 6^th Phase, Bengaluru. On 18.10.2022 her son Naveen Kumar D., who went to the terrace of the building died of electrocution coming in contact with the electric cables passing over the terrace. It is alleged that the petitioner being the owner of the building has not taken care to see that the electric cables are properly laid and inspite of assuring that he will set right the cables passing over the building, failed to take any action and therefore, on account of his negligence, her son died due to

¶27

electrocution.

¶28

Annexure-B to the petition is the legal notice dated 06.12.2022 issued by the complainant to the petitioner claiming damages and compensation of Rs.1 Crore.

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:14989 CRL.P No. 6677 of 2023

¶31

The contention of the learned counsel for

¶32

petitioner is that the ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out and after issuance of a legal notice, complaint was lodged, to harass the petitioner.

¶33

The incident took place on 18.10.2022 and initially a UDR No.47/2022 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Complaint came to be lodged on 09.01.2023, on the basis of which the aforementioned case was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC.

¶34

The question is as to whether the death of complainant’s son due to electrocution has nexus with any act of the petitioner so as to attract an offence under Section 304A of IPC.

¶35

The material on record does not reveal any rash

¶36

or negligent act on the part of the petitioner which would attract the ingredients of Section 304A of IPC. A reading of the complaint averments itself goes to show that the

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14989 CRL.P No. 6677 of 2023

¶38

electric cables were passing over the terrace of the building and it was not lying on the floor. It is well settled that, there must be mens rea in criminal negligence and even accepting that the there was carelessness, that itself is not sufficient to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 304A of IPC. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher and the expression ‘rash or negligent act’ as occurring in Section 304A of IPC and the very foundation to constitute an offence under Section 304A of IPC, there must be act or omission on the part of the petitioner which has led to death of the deceased. In the present case, the ingredients of Section 304A of IPC is lacking. As such the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court, which is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Petition is allowed.

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14989 CRL.P No. 6677 of 2023

¶42

The proceedings arising out of Crime No.4/2023 of Puttenahalli Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC, pending on the file of the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are quashed.

¶43

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶44

HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 Ct:ar

Smt N Manjula Babu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt N Manjula Babu 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

Sri. O R Akshay Vs the State of Karnataka

Gowrish B. Sugur Vs the Station House Officer

Shivakumar. N Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Jay Ramani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Subramanya v Vs Renuka Nayak H

Sri Prashanth Vs State of Karnataka