- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11140 WP No. 7402 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 WRIT PETITION NO. 7402 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VINAY KUMAR SINGH S/O SURAJ SINGH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT SURESH BUILDING BALAGARNAHALLI VILLAGE, ATTIBELE HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-562 107. 2. ARUN KUMAR S/O HALGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.44/19, VENKATAPPA LAYOUT, HOSKERHALLI, BENGALURU-560 085. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. MR. HEMANTH YADAV S/O RAM BILAS YADAVA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BAHAPUR VILLAGE, NUVAGOLA POST, Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11140 WP No. 7402 of 2025 GORAKPUR DISTRICT, UTTAR PRADESH. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R-1; MS. BHAVANA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CRPS 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.11/2025 PENDING BEFORE 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT ANEKAL VIDE (ANNEXURE-A) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners-accused in the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 106 of the BNS Act, 2023 are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the deceased, Sanjay Yadav, who was the brother of respondent No. 2 (complainant), worked as a driver for Mahendra Freight Carrier. On the relevant day, he was driving a long trailer lorry carrying “Kayal Bel” goods to be supplied to and unloaded at Sri Lakshmi Steel Supply Company, where the petitioners are employees. It is further alleged that the deceased parked the lorry on the premises of the company for the purpose of unloading steel coils. During the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11140 WP No. 7402 of 2025 unloading process, while the crane was being used to load a steel coil, the deceased who was standing at the rear of the lorry came into contact with the space between the lorry and the steel coil, sustained injuries to the chest, and subsequently succumbed to those injuries. 3. The parties are present before this Court and have entered into a settlement agreement stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves. Under the terms of the settlement, the company has paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000 to the wife and son of the deceased as full and final settlement of their claim. The wife and son of the deceased, who are present before this Court, have agreed to withdraw all allegations and have no objection to the quashing of the impugned proceedings. 4. The settlement agreement is placed on record. 5. It is admitted that the incident occurred when the operator of the crane attempted to lift the steel coil from the lorry, which was parked on the company premises, and the deceased who was the driver of the lorry was struck by the steel coil. In this regard, any negligence cannot be attributed to the operator of the crane; rather, it was the responsibility of the driver, who, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11140 WP No. 7402 of 2025 after alighting from the lorry, ought to have taken appropriate precautionary measures. 6. The offence under Section 106 of the BNS Act, 2023 is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years and also by fine. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, at para 57 and 58 has ruled as follows: "57. Quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offence. They are different and not interchangeable. Strictly speaking, the power of compounding of offences given to a court under Section 320 is materially different from the quashing of criminal proceedings by the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 320 and the court is guided solely and squarely thereby while, on the other hand, the formation of opinion by the High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although the ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. 58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11140 WP No. 7402 of 2025 in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed." - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11140 WP No. 7402 of 2025 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ambala D. Bhat v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1972) 3 SCC 525, has held as follows: ”(i) In a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A of IPC, the court has to examine whether the alleged act of the accused is the direct result of a rash and negligent act and whether that act was the proximate and efficient cause of death without the intervention of another’s negligence. The mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations while performing an act does not automatically establish an offence under Section 304-A IPC. The act causing death must be the causa causans; it is not sufficient that it was merely the causa sine qua non. The court must determine whether the act of the accused was the causa causans or whether an intervening cause broke the chain of causation, thereby making the accused’s act—though negligent—not the immediate cause of death. The court must also consider whether the act amounted to gross negligence or recklessly negligent conduct. The fact that multiple lives were lost, however shocking and regrettable, should not cloud the judicial mind when appreciating the evidence.” 9. In the present case, the by itself, cannot be considered the direct, proximate, and efficient cause of death attributable to the petitioners’ rash and negligent act. Consequently, the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 304-A IPC are not satisfied. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11140 WP No. 7402 of 2025 10. In view of the settlement reached between the parties, and the death of the worker cannot be attributed to the rash and negligent act of the petitioners, continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be a futile exercise, as the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak. Consequently, such continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law. ORDER i) The petition is allowed ii) The Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.11/2025, on the file of the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, at Anekal insofar it relates to accused-petitioners herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 147