Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21376 (KAR)

DR. S. RAJANNA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/3963/2025 · 2025-04-21

Hemant Chandangoudar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16321 CRL.P No. 3963 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3963 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: DR. S. RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE SUBBANNA R/A NO.06, CHANDRA PARK, OUTER RING ROAD, NEAR BADRAPPA LAYOUT, NAGASHETTY HALLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU- 560 094 AS PER AADHAR CARD. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VIDYASHREE K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION ACP, MICO LAYOUT SUB DIVISION REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2911/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II A.C.M.M AT BENGALURU REGISTERED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 01.01.2019 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 465, 466, 468 AND 471 OF IPC. Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16321 CRL.P No. 3963 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State. 2. The petitioner, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, and 471 of the IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 3. In MFA No.2451/2009 filed by the National Insurance Company, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, by order dated 09.03.2011, passed certain observations in the form of strictures against all the accused. The Court, upon examining the entire records and the findings of the Commissioner, found that there was a clear attempt on the part of the claimant, in connivance with the accused, to deceive the Insurance Company and secure compensation in a case where the claimant was not even injured in the vehicle said to have been involved in the accident dated 26.11.2005. As stated earlier, the FIR (Ex.P1) does not disclose the presence of the claimant as a cleaner in the said vehicle; it only refers to the presence of one Siddappa, who was stated to be the driver of the vehicle. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16321 CRL.P No. 3963 of 2025 4. Following this, the award was set aside by this Court. The strictures passed against Accused No.2 were challenged before the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.3679/2019. By order dated 24.05.2021, the Division Bench set aside the strictures passed against the said person, holding that the strictures were passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Moreover, the prosecution had not placed any material to substantiate that the petitioner had connived in fabricating Ex.P1, the FIR, or the medical report. 5. Pursuant to this, the IGP and Additional DGP (Traffic) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to investigate the allegations against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry against the petitioner and others, submitted a report. However, this Court, in MFA No.2451/2009, by order dated 16.03.2018, rejected the report and directed the police to prosecute the matter. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court again set aside the strictures passed against Sri M. Nagaraju, stating that the same were passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 6. A perusal of the charge sheet materials discloses that there is no substantive evidence to establish that the petitioner had connived with the other accused in fabricating documents to enable the claimant to obtain compensation illegally. Under such circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16321 CRL.P No. 3963 of 2025 7. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2911/2019 on the file of the II ACMM at Bengaluru insofar it relates to the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 36