Nandan S/O Ramesha Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CASE REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.772/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 279, 304(A) OF IPC, UNDER SECTION 196 OF INDIAN MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:37056 CRL.P No. 9586 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2 in C.C.No.772/2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC Court, Shikaripura. The petitioner, who was the rider of the motorcycle involved in a road traffic accident, seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶26

The facts, in brief, are that on 24.08.2023, the petitioner was riding a motorcycle along with a pillion rider. During the course of the journey, the motorcycle met with an accident involving a bus proceeding in the same direction. It is the case of the petitioner that the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle, and as a result, the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and succumbed at the spot. The petitioner himself lodged a complaint before

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37056 CRL.P No. 9586 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

the jurisdictional police narrating these facts, on the basis

¶30

of which a case came to be registered.

¶31

The grievance urged by the petitioner before this Court is that, despite being the complainant, he has been arraigned as accused No.2 in the charge sheet. It is

¶32

contended that the only reason assigned by the Investigating Officer for implicating him is that the motorcycle, on the date of the incident, was allegedly not insured. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this circumstance, even if accepted, would not disclose the ingredients of any criminal offence, much less the one alleged under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. On these premises, the learned counsel prays that the proceedings in C.C.No.772/2024 be quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶33

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, placing reliance on the charge-sheet materials, submits that there is sufficient material to indicate that the petitioner, who was riding the motorcycle at the time of

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37056 CRL.P No. 9586 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

the incident, was also responsible for the occurrence. It is pointed out that the charge sheet refers to statements of eyewitnesses and other evidence indicating that the petitioner attempted to overtake the bus in a rash manner, lost control of the motorcycle, and in the process, came into contact with the bus, resulting in the fatal fall of the pillion rider. It is therefore submitted that the allegations, as supported by the charge-sheet material, clearly disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner and that the proceedings ought not to be interfered with at this nascent stage.

¶37

I have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional SPP. I have also perused the charge sheet and the material collected during investigation. Though the spot mahazar has not been produced along with the petition papers, the other materials forming part of the charge sheet prima facie indicate that the petitioner, being the rider of the

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:37056 CRL.P No. 9586 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

motorcycle, was also partly responsible for the accident. The materials disclose that he allegedly attempted to overtake the bus in a reckless manner, which resulted in loss of balance and consequent death of the pillion rider.

¶42

Having regard to the law governing the exercise

¶43

of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the considered opinion that, at this stage, when there are materials pointing towards the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged rash and negligent act, it would not be proper to interdict the proceedings. The veracity or otherwise of the allegations is a matter to be established during trial, and the petitioner will have full liberty to lead evidence in defence and demonstrate that he was not responsible for the unfortunate accident.

¶44

In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the petition. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and reserving liberty to the

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:37056 CRL.P No. 9586 of 2025

¶46