- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16670 WP No. 12151 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12151 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHASHIKUMAR SHETTY S/O LATE B NARAYANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.4-72/2/2/1 KUMARA KRIPA, SHARADA NAGARA, MADOOR, MANGALORE, KOTEKAR, D.K-575 022. 2. G. MEHBOOB S/O G. HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT 14-4-366-3, DONEBOSCO CROSS ROAD, FALNIR MILAGRIS CROSS ROAD, BALMATH ROAD, MANGALORE, HAMPANKATTA, D.K-575 001. 3. B. RAMESH, S/O B. PADMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.2-8-686, BEJAI, KAPIKAD, SHANTHINIKETHAN, MANAGLORE, D.K-575 004. 4. ILIYAS ALI, S/O MIJANUR RAHAMAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT BALARAMPUR, VTC: KOLAN RADHAKANTAPUR, PO: KOLAN RADHAKANTAPUR, SUB DISTRICT: BHAGWANGOLA-II, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16670 WP No. 12151 of 2025 DISTRICT: MURSHIDABAD, STATE WEST BENGAL-742123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR URVA POLICE STATION MANGALORE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. 2. RASUL HAQUE, S/O AINAL HAQUE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT BALARAMPUR VILLAGE, KOLAN POST, RADHAKANTAPUR, MURSHIDABAD, BHAGWANGOLA-POLICE STATION, WEST BENGAL-742123. 3. TIYARUL S.K, S/O TAHAJUL S.K, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT BALARAMPUR VILLAGE, KOLAN, RADHAKANTAPUR, MURSHIDABAD, WEST BENGAL-742123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MEGHACHANDRA D.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BHARATHIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.32/2025 REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4) BY THE URVA POLICE STATION (RESPONDENT NO.1) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 105 OF THE BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) 2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 3RD JMFC COURT, MANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16670 WP No. 12151 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Learned counsel accepts notice for the respondent No.1-State. Sri Megha Chandra D.N., learned advocate files vakalat on behalf of respondent No.2 and 3 and the same is placed on record. 2. Petitioners who are facing investigation for the offences punishable under Sections 105 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, are before this Court seeking relief. 3. The 2nd respondent lodged the first information report (FIR) stating that, when he along with the deceased while working in a under construction building as per the instruction of the engineer and the site incharge, the complainant along with the deceased went to the 3rd floor of the under construction building and while he was operating the lifting machine, he accidentally fell down from the 3rd floor and succumbed to the injuries. 4. Parties are present before this Court and have filed an application for compounding and also affidavits stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute between the parties and in terms of the settlement, the petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the father of the deceased towards full and final settlement of his claim. The respondent - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16670 WP No. 12151 of 2025 No.3 who is present before this Court has acknowledges the same subject to realization and both respondent No.2 and 3 have agreed to withdraw all the allegations made against the petitioners and has no objections for quashing the impugned first information report. 5. The application and the affidavits are taken on record. 6 The offence punishable under Section 105 BNS is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and fine or with both. The offence under Section 106 of the BNS Act, 2023, is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and fine. 7. 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.” 8. 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: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16670 WP No. 12151 of 2025 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 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16670 WP No. 12151 of 2025 ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.32/2025 registered by the Urva Police Station, Mangaluru, insofar it relates to petitioners herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 12