- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12526 CRL.P No. 7318 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7318 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR H M VINOD KUMAR S/O LATE C.H. MADAN LAL R/AT NO. 107, SALAPURIA CAMBRIDGE RESIDENCY, Ist CROSS, CAMBRIDGE ROAD, ULSOOR, BENGALURU 560 008 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TAHURA ANZAR.,ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ULSOOR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU 560 008 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED) THS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR, CHARGE SHEET AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.53490/2019 ON THE FILE OF X ACMM, BANGALORE (ANNEXURES-A,B,C AND D) AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12526 CRL.P No. 7318 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner / accused No.1 is seeking to quash the complaint and FIR registered in Crime No.128/2018 of Halsuru Police Staiton, Bengaluru City and the proceedings in C.C.No.53490/2019 pending before the Hon'ble X ACMM at Bengaluru for offences punishable under Section 338 and 288 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant is served but there is no representation. 4. It is the case of prosecution that accused No.1 is the owner of property bearing No.19 situated at Bazaar street Halsur. He had engaged accused No.2 for construction of a building in the said site and accused No.3 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12526 CRL.P No. 7318 of 2022 was the Manager. On 13.03.2018 at about 02:45 p.m., when the complainant's husband was working in the said building on the second floor, he lost balance and fell down and sustained sever injuries and later succumbed to the said injuries. 5. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Section 288 and 338 of IPC. 6. Section 288 reads as follows: Sec.288 Whoever, in pulling down or repairing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with that building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or of any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 7. Section 338 reads as follows: S. 338: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others Description: Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12526 CRL.P No. 7318 of 2022 description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. 8. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that even accepting the case of prosecution, the ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out against the petitioner, owner of the said building, who had entrusted construction work to a contractor. She has relied on a decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.936/2011 disposed on 20.01.2016 and the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 2009 SCC Online Mad 1597:2010 Cri LJ 762. 9. Paragraph No.6 of the first decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is extracted here under:- Here is the case where the petitioner is brought to book only for being the owner of the property. There is no material indicating his indulgence in the construction work and the collapse, at the most he may be careless for not observing the act of accused No.3 and threat for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12526 CRL.P No. 7318 of 2022 taking necessary protective measures while putting up the construction, but that carelessness does not amount to culpability so as to fasten with the liability of the offence under Sections 337 338 and 304A of IPC. It is a fit case to interfere with the criminal proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings. 10. Paragraph No.17 of the decision rendered by the Madras High Court is extracted herein under:- "It is not disputed that he sought the assistance of the masons to construct the building. If the masons had not done the work properly and if they had been negligent in not mixing the lime mortar in proper proportions, the respondent could not be made liable for the negligence of those persons who actually constructed the building, who are supposed to be skilled. The respondent is a layman. He, therefore, cannot be held liable for the negligence of the persons who actually constructed the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12526 CRL.P No. 7318 of 2022 building which negligence is the causa causans for the collapse of the building." 11. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the premises who had entrusted the work of construction to a contractor i.e., accused No.2. It is also not in dispute that victim died when he lost balance and fell down, while working on the second floor of the building. Hence, it cannot be said that there was any negligence act committed by the petitioner or lapse on his part, due to which the victim died. 12. A bare reading of the above provisions clearly indicate that the ingredients of the offences alleged in this case are not attracted. In the complaint it is stated that since the accused did not head to the request of the complainant, to make good expenses incurred in treating her husband, she lodged the complaint to take necessary action. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant has filed a petition seeking - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12526 CRL.P No. 7318 of 2022 compensation before the VII Additional Small Causes Judge and ACMM at Bengaluru in ECA.No.82/2019. 13. In the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of Law. 14. Complainant can seek compensation for the death of the husband, before the appropriate forum and quashing of criminal proceedings shall not come in the way of claiming compensation. Hence the following:- ORDER i) Petition is allowed. ii) Proceedings against the petitioner, pending in C.C.No.53490/2019 on the file of the Court of X Additional CMM at Bengaluru, registered for offences punishable under Section 338 and 288 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12526 CRL.P No. 7318 of 2022 iii) Quashing of proceedings shall not come in the way of respondent No.2/complainant seeking compensation before the appropriate forum. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17