Allowed¶68

Preetham v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026CRL.P/9314/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.; additional charge sheet after closure of case; unauthorized further investigation; Section 304-A IPC; Sections 279 and 338 IPC; road traffic accident; causation between injury and death; glomerulosclerosis; post-mortem final opinion; wound certificate; AJ Hospital and Research Centre; guilty plea and conviction to pay fine; abuse of process of law; C.C.No.382/2019; III JMFC Mangalore; Crime No.270/2018; Mangalore South Traffic Police Station; Karnataka High Court; single-judge oral order.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.382/2019, registered for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC (Crime No.270/2018 of South Police Station, Mangalore), quashed against the petitioner. ¶68

Preetham Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.382/2019, registered for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC (Crime No.270/2018 of South Police Station, Mangalore), quashed against the petitioner.

¶68

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?

¶32

Court's answer

Unless the Investigating Officer is permitted to further investigate into the matter as per Section 173(8) of Cr.PC, he is not authorized to investigate further into a matter which is already closed; the order sheet shows no permission was sought from or granted by the learned Magistrate for the further investigation that produced the additional charge sheet.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

Injury No.1 in the wound certificate dated 07.11.2018 cannot be related to the cause of death in the post-mortem final opinion dated 23.04.2021 without specific averments, and the Court found no allegation connecting the two.

¶56

Key takeaways

The evidence on record prima facie does not support the prosecution's contention that the death was relatable to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident; the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are in abuse of the process of law and liable to be quashed.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. by the sole accused in C.C.No.382/2019 (III JMFC, Mangalore), arising from Crime No.270/2018 of Mangalore South Traffic Police Station, seeking quashing of proceedings for offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. After a road traffic accident on 10.10.2018, the injured (Narayan Naik) was treated at AJ Hospital and Research Centre, Mangalore; the FIR and first charge sheet were under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, the petitioner pleaded guilty and was convicted to pay fine by order dated 20.05.2019, and the case was closed. The Investigating Officer thereafter conducted further investigation and filed an additional charge sheet under Section 304-A IPC without obtaining the learned Magistrate's permission under Section 173(8) Cr.PC, upon which cognizance was taken, C.C.No.382/2019 was reopened and summons issued. The injured died on 14.03.2021, about a year after his last follow-up treatment (16.03.2020); the post-mortem final opinion dated 23.04.2021 attributed death to chronic complications of glomerulosclerosis (kidney disease) due to prolonged hospitalization secondary to the road traffic mishap. The Court held that further investigation of an already-closed case without permission under Section 173(8) Cr.PC was unauthorized, that injury No.1 in the wound certificate could not be connected to the certified cause of death without specific averments (none being found), and that the evidence did not prima facie establish the death as relatable to the accident injuries; the proceedings were therefore an abuse of the process of law. Petition allowed; criminal proceedings quashed against the petitioner.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1369 CRL.P No. 9314 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9314 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PREETHAM, S/O VISHWANATHA MOILI, AGED 21 YEARS, R/AT NO.10-25, MUGRADY HOUSE, PADAVINANGADY, PADAVU VILLAGE, KONCHADY POST, MANGALURU - 575 008

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MANGALURU SOUTH TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶15

S RAMESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, A.P.C 2662, CITY ARMED RESERVE POLICE, MANGALURU - 574 142

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 & 2)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.382/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE III JMFC, MANGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.279 AND 304-A OF IPC PURSUANT TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLIANT IN

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:1369 CRL.P No. 9314 of 2021

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CR.NO.270/2018 OF MANGALURU SOUTH POLICE STATION BY ALLOWING THIS PETITIONER.

¶23

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner being the sole accused in (Crime No.270/2018 of Mangalore South Police Station), pending in C.C.No.382/2019 on the file of the learned III JMFC, Mangalore, registered for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶27

Heard Sri Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sowmya R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and 2. Perused the materials on record.

¶28

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:1369 CRL.P No. 9314 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

¶33

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

¶34

REASONS

¶35

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was a 'Road Traffic Accident' that occurred on 10.10.2018. On the same day, the injured filed the first information which was registered in Crime No.270/2018 of Mangalore Traffic South Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.

¶36

It is the contention of the prosecution that, the petitioner being the rider of the motorcycle dashed to the injured and caused injuries. The wound certificate pertaining to the injured discloses that he had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident on 10.10.2018 around 9.00 a.m. and had sustained the following injuries:

¶37

i) Laceration of 3cm x 2cm x bone deep on the left side of forehead with CT Scan showing multiple contusions of brain with sub-arachnoid haemorrhage with diffuse axonal injury;

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:1369 CRL.P No. 9314 of 2021

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ii) Reddish abrasion of 3cm x 2 cm on the left hand and;

¶42

iii) Reddish contusion of 12cm x 8cm on the left knee.

¶43

Injury No.1 was described as grievous in nature, while injury Nos.2 and 3 are simple in nature.

¶44

The final report came to be filed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. The petitioner pleaded guilty and as per the order dated 20.05.2019 he was convicted to pay fine.

¶45

My attention was drawn to the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court dated 03.07.2021, where there is reference to closure of the case for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC, against the petitioner on payment of fine. However there is also reference that the Investigating Officer had further investigated into the matter and filed additional charge sheet for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, reopened C.C.No.382/2019 and issued summons to the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:1369 CRL.P No. 9314 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

It is pertinent to note that, as per the order sheet

¶50

dated 03.07.2021, even though there is reference to further investigation and filing of additional charge sheet by the Investigating Officer, after closure of C.C.No.382/2019 at the first instance by imposing fine on the accused after he pleaded guilty, there is no reference of seeking permission from the learned Magistrate for further investigation into the matter or granting of such permission. Unless the Investigating Officer is permitted to further investigate into the matter as per Section 173(8) of Cr.PC, he is not authorized to investigate further into the matter, which is already closed.

¶51

Initially, the wound certificate issued by the AJ Hospital and Research Centre, Mangalore, discloses that the injured has sustained as many as 3 injuries as stated above, Out of which, injury No.1 is grievous injury, which is described as laceration on the left side of forehead with CT Scan showing multiple contusions of brain with sub-arachnoid haemorrhage with diffuse axonal injury. The Certificate dated 02.06.2021 issued by the very same AJ Hospital and Research Centre, Mangalore certifies that the injured Narayan Naik had came to the Hospital on 10.10.2018 at 9.15 a.m. and was discharged on

¶52

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:1369 CRL.P No. 9314 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

07.11.2018. Thereafter, he took follow up treatment 18 times from 23.11.2018 till 16.03.2020. The police have filed the charge sheet at the first instance and the petitioner had pleaded guilty, paid fine on 20.05.2019 and the matter was closed. By that time, the injured was already discharged from the Hospital on 17.07.2018 itself. The injured said to have took follow up treatment from 23.11.2018 till 16.03.2020. Admittedly, the injured said to have died on 14.03.2021 i.e. about a year after his last follow up treatment at AJ Hospital and Research Centre, Mangalore.

¶56

The copy of the Post Mortem Report is produced before the Court. The final opinion regarding cause of death is also produced. As per the final opinion. The death of the deceased was due to chronic complications due to glomerulosclerosis (Disease of the kidney) because of prolonged hospitalization secondary to Road Traffic Mishap. If injury No.1 mentioned in the wound certificate dated 07.11.2018 is considered in the light of the final opinion dated 23.04.2021, the same cannot be related to one another without any specific averments. I do not find any such allegation to connect injury No.1 in the wound certificate to the cause of

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:1369 CRL.P No. 9314 of 2021

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

death mentioned in the final opinion. The date of incident is 10.10.2018 and injured was discharged from the hospital on 07.11.2018. After filing the charge sheet at the first instance, the case was closed on 20.05.2019. The further investigation appears to have been conducted without getting the order of the learned Magistrate. The evidence on record prima-facie does not support the contention of the prosecution that the death was relatable to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. In view of these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is in abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶61

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶62

ORDER

¶63

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶64

(ii) The Criminal Proceedings initiated in CC.No.382/2019 , pending on the file of the learned VII JMFC, Mangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279

¶65

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:1369 CRL.P No. 9314 of 2021

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

and 304-A of IPC (Crime No.270/2018 of South Police Station, Mangalore), is hereby quashed against the petitioner.

¶69

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶70

MKM

¶71