- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11122 CRL.P No. 404 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 404 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR. RAHUL BAIG S/O ABDULLA BAIG AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO 41/A, 3RD FLOOR 8TH CROSS HBR LAYOUT KANCHARAKANAHALLI 2ND BLOCK KALYANANAGAR POST BANGALORE-560043. (MAIN-CONSTRUCTOR OF CONTRACTURE OF INDIA COM. VIJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE) 2. MR NAVEEN KUMAR R S/O K RAVI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT 99, MAIN ROAD DEVANGA COLONY BANASHANKRI TEMPLE THIPPAGONDANAHALLI THIPPAGONDANAHALLI POST DAVANAGERE-577213. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT PS BANGALORE REP BY SPP OF HIGH COURT OF KANRATAKA BANGALORE-560001. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11122 CRL.P No. 404 of 2025 2. MR MADAN LALA GURJAR S/O BHUPAL RAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO 539 5TH MAIN NEAR VIJAYALAXMI HOTEL VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT BANGALORE-560076. PERMANENT ADDRESS AS PER COMPAINT R/AT RAYGARO KA MAHOLI KANWARASA KHANDEL TALUQ JAIPUR DIST RAJASTHAN-303604. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOP KUMAR M V, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M O SULTANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.458/2024 DATED 14-12-2024 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE (MICO LAYOUT PS) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 106(1) R/W 3(5) OF BNS PENDING ON THE FILE OF CMM COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. VIDE ANNEXURE -A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 3, who are facing investigation in Crime No. 458/2024 for offences punishable under Section 106(1) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS Act, have approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The second respondent lodged an FIR stating that the deceased, Amit Kumar Kumawat, who was working as a subcontractor on the petitioners’ project, succumbed to injuries after falling from the second floor of the building. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11122 CRL.P No. 404 of 2025 The petitioners and the second respondent, who is a family member of the deceased, are present before this Court with their respective counsels. They have filed an application for compounding the offences, along with a joint memo and a joint affidavit, stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves. As per the settlement, the petitioners have agreed to pay ₹10,00,000 as compensation to the family of the deceased in full and final settlement of their claim, of which ₹5,00,000 has already been paid. 3. The application, joint memo, and joint affidavit are placed on record. 4. The petitioners have handed over two post-dated cheques for the remaining ₹5,00,000 to the second respondent-complainant, who is present before this Court. The complainant has acknowledged receipt of the cheques, subject to realization. The second respondent has also agreed to withdraw all allegations against the petitioners and has no objection to the quashing of the impugned FIR. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1- State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. The offence under Section 304A of the IPC (corresponding to Section 106(1) of the BNS Act, 2023) is punishable by imprisonment for up to three years, or with a fine, or both. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11122 CRL.P No. 404 of 2025 7. The offence under Section 106 of the BNS Act, 2023, is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and also by a fine. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], at paragraphs 57 and 58, ruled as follows: “Quashing of an offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the offender and victim is not the same as compounding of offences. These are different and not interchangeable. The power to compound offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. is distinct from the inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings when the ends of justice so require. The High Court may quash a criminal proceeding if it deems that continuing the proceedings would be an exercise in futility and that justice would be best served by bringing the dispute to an end.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat [(1972) 3 SCC 525], laid down the principles governing the application of Section 304A IPC and held: 1. In a prosecution under Section 304A IPC, the court must determine whether the accused’s act was the direct result of rash or negligent conduct and whether it was the proximate and efficient cause of death, without the intervention of another negligent act. 2. The act causing death must be the causa causans (the immediate or proximate cause), not merely the causa sine qua non (a necessary condition). If an intervening cause breaks the chain of causation, making the accused’s act no longer the immediate - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11122 CRL.P No. 404 of 2025 cause of death, there can be no conviction. The accused’s conduct must amount to gross negligence or reckless disregard for human life. Mere loss of life, however unfortunate, cannot alone justify a conviction. 10. In the present case, the petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 3, have been implicated solely on the basis that an agreement existed between the owners of the property and M/s Contracture of India, a construction company, where petitioner No.1 was the contractor and petitioner No.2 was the site engineer. The accident occurred at this construction site. However, there are no specific allegations or evidence suggesting that the petitioners directly engaged in any rash or negligent act that led to the deceased’s death. 11. The FIR and complaint do not allege that the actions or omissions of accused Nos. 1 and 3 directly, proximately, or efficiently caused the deceased’s death. 12. In the absence of substantive material establishing a direct nexus between the petitioners’ actions and the cause of death, and in light of the settlement reached between the parties, continuing the investigation against the petitioners would be futile, as the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak. Allowing the investigation to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11122 CRL.P No. 404 of 2025 ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.458/2024 registered by the Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 3 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 15