- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3598 CRL.P No. 100097 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100097 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ARUN S/O. SHARANAPPA AGADI AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. PVT. WORK, R/O. AMARGOL, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-582208. 2. SOHANAGOUDA GOUDAR S/O. RUDRAGOUDA AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. GENERAL MANAGER, R/O. NAGASHANTI KIA SHOW ROOM, AMARGOL, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-582208. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GADAG TOWN PS, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. 2. ANASOYA W/O. VEERUPAXAPPA GIDAMALLANAVAR, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. SARVODAYA COLONY, GADAG, TQ. AND DIST. GADAG-582101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. S.M.KALWAD, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/A1 AND A2 IN C.C.NO. 1288/2024 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC I COURT, GADAG FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 304(A) OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-D. B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.27 14:39:00 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3598 CRL.P No. 100097 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have filed a criminal petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 1288/2024, pending before the 1st Additional Civil Judge and JMFC I Court, Gadag, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 2. The charge sheet submitted by the police in Crime No. 32/2024, dated 10.07.2024, states that the deceased, Vinay Veerupakshya Giddamallanavar, was employed at Naga Shanti Kia Car Showroom in Gadag. On 01.04.2024, he died due to the collapse of the showroom’s iron gate while he was attempting to close it using a car jack. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1, the owner of the showroom, and petitioner No. 2, the showroom manager, negligently failed to maintain the gate properly and did not provide adequate safety measures for employees, which led to the employee’s death. 3. The FIR registered by respondent No. 2, the mother of the deceased, on 01.04.2024, reveals that the incident occurred between 15:00 and 15:30 hours. The deceased, Vinay Veerupakshya Giddamallanavar, was instructed to close the showroom gate. However, due to the alleged negligence of the accused persons in failing to maintain the gate in proper condition, the iron gate fell on the deceased, causing severe injuries to his - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3598 CRL.P No. 100097 of 2025 head, eyes, and nose. He succumbed to excessive bleeding and died on the spot. 4. Consequently, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. 5. A perusal of the statement given by respondent No. 2 to the police on 02.04.2024 reveals that the deceased died on 01.04.2024 at about 03:30 hours. While voluntarily using a car jack to close the heavy iron gate, the gate fell on him, causing severe head injuries. A nearby hotel owner attempted to rescue him and, along with others, helped move him outside the showroom. However, due to excessive bleeding from his eyes and nose, the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot. 6. After completing the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet dated 10.07.2024 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. 7. The learned counsel, Shri Avinash Banakar, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the incident occurred due to the non-opening of the gate. When the deceased sought assistance from the owner of a nearby hotel, he subsequently took a car jack and attempted to lift the gate. At that moment, the gate collapsed on him, resulting in his death on the spot. Therefore, it was contended that the alleged incident occurred solely due to the negligence of the deceased. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3598 CRL.P No. 100097 of 2025 8. Further, he submitted that the deceased had recently joined the company and, without obtaining the necessary permission from the concerned authorities, used a car jack to close the gate unnecessarily during working hours, which led to his death on the spot. He also pointed out contradictions in the statements made by the complainant to the police. In the initial complaint, the complainant stated that when she arrived at the scene, people were gathered to remove the gate and separate the body of the deceased. However, in a subsequent statement, she mentioned that the gate had already been removed when she reached the spot. Therefore, it was argued that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. 9. The dependents of the deceased, namely his wife and daughter, have filed a claim for workmen’s compensation before the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, in E.C.A. No. 12/2024, seeking Rs. 40,00,000/- (Forty Lakhs) as compensation. In light of this, it was contended that the initiation of criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 1 and 2, without sufficient evidence of rashness or negligence, is unsustainable and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 10. The Learned counsel for respondent- HCGP and learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submitted that the negligence of the accused persons in failing to maintain the gate in proper condition, the iron gate fell on the deceased, causing severe injuries, and succumbing to death. The veracity of the allegations against the petitioners can be considered at the time of trial, and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3598 CRL.P No. 100097 of 2025 cannot be gone into in this petition . In support, reliance is placed on the following Supreme Court decision Naresh Giri v. State of M.P (2008) 1 SCC 791. 11. Heard the submissions of Learned Counsel of both parties. 12. The issue before whether the charge sheet filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 304(A) is maintainable under law or not. 13. Section 304-A of the IPC reads as follows: “304A. Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” 14. Section 304-A of the IPC has two components in it. The result of death should be out of rash or negligent act by the accused. Section 304-A of the IPC mandates that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide be punished. Therefore, the act should be either rash or negligent. 15. The Apex Court in the case of Naresh Giri supra para Nos.7, 8 it is ruled as follows: ● Wherein, an accident took place between the bus and train near a railway crossing. In an accident, the appellant was a driver of a bus who drove the bus in a negligent manner which resulted in the death of two persons and some persons were injured. The Supreme Court in this case altered the charges framed under Section 279 and Section 337 of IPC to section 304-A of IPC. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3598 CRL.P No. 100097 of 2025 ● “(i) Section 304-A IPC applies to cases, where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. Section 304-A of IPC applies only to such acts which are rash and negligent and directly results in death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements of Section 304-A of IPC. ● (ii) Under Section 304-A of IPC, any rash or negligent act whereby death of any person is caused becomes punishable. Two elements either of which or both of which may be proved to establish the guilt of the accused are rashness and negligence; a person may cause death by rash and negligent act. Section 304- A IPC discloses that criminality may be that apart from any mens rea, there may be no motive or intention still a person may venture or practise such rashness or negligence”. 16. It is a settled principle that under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the negligence imputed to the accused must be gross in nature. Though the term "gross" has not been used in section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Others in (2005) 6 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while examining a case of criminal medical negligence by a Doctor under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, has reviewed the case law on the subject and in para 48 thereof, has held as under: "(5) The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil and criminal law. What may be negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For negligence to amount to an offence, the element of mens rea must be shown to exist. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e., gross or of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for prosecution”. 6. The word 'gross' has not been used in Section 304-A IPC, yet it is settled that in criminal law negligence or recklessness, to be so held, must be of such a high degree as to be 'gross'. The expression 'rash or negligent act' as occurring in Section 304-A IPC has to be read as qualified by the word 'grossly'." 17. In the case of Ambala D.Bhatt -VsThe State Of Gujarat, reported in (1972) 3 Supreme Court cases 525, wherein - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3598 CRL.P No. 100097 of 2025 there was allegation on chemist about culpable negligence in manufacture of glucose saline solution that led to death of 13 people. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while overturning the sentence held that: "(i) In a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A of I.P.C., the court has to examine whether the alleged act of the accused is the direct result of a rash and negligent act and that act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death without intervention of other's negligence. The mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in doing of an act does not establish an offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C. The act causing deaths must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. The court has to determine whether the act of the accused is the causa causans or has there been a cause intervening which has broken the chain of causation so as to make the act of the accused, though a negligent one, not the immediate cause or whether it amounts to an act of gross negligence or recklessly negligent conduct. The fact that twelve lives have been lost, however shocking and regrettable it may be, ought not to allow the mind boggle while appreciating the evidence." 18. Therefore, in the light of the above mentioned decision, in order to attract the provisions of Section 304-A IPC, there must be direct and sole negligence on the part of the accused for causing the death of a person. 19. In the case of Naresh Giri v. State of M.P (2008) 1 SCC 791, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that in order to attract the charges punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, when a person commits any act in rash and negligent manner and such act directly results in death of another person. Further, in order to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 304-A IPC, one needs to establish that such an act was negligent and rash. However, in the light of facts and circumstances of the present - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3598 CRL.P No. 100097 of 2025 case, there is absence of any proof about gross negligence of the accused person that directly resulted in the death of an employee. 20. In the case of Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala (2007) 14 SCC 269, wherein, driver of a bus was charged for offences under Section 302 of IPC for causing the death of a 10 year old boy on a road. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held; “6. A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genus, of which rashness is the species. It has sometimes been observed that in rashness the action is done precipitously that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not…” “7. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider it to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused”. 21. Therefore, to constitute an offence under Section 304- A of the IPC, there must be gross negligence on the part of the accused that directly causes the death of a person. Additionally, there must be a proximate or direct link between the act of the accused and the death. However, in the present case, neither the charge sheet nor the complaint establishes the existence of gross negligence on the part of the accused, nor does it disclose a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3598 CRL.P No. 100097 of 2025 proximate link to the incident. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the accused is unsustainable and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 22. It was brought to the Court’s attention that the legal representatives of the deceased have filed claim petition for workmen’s compensation before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, in E.C.A. No. 12/2024. 23. Furthermore, as per the complainant’s statement dated 02.04.2024, the deceased died due to the voluntary use of a car jack in an attempt to lift the heavy Iron Gate. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in light of the applicable law, I am of the clear opinion that the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be held liable for negligence in causing the death of the deceased within the meaning of Section 304-A of the IPC. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER 1. The Criminal Petition is allowed. 2. The impugned proceedings in C.C No. 1288/2024 on the file of 1st Addl. Civil judge and JMFC-I Court, Gadag for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of IPC is hereby quashed. 3. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to claim compensation before appropriate Authority in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37