- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1999 CRL.P No. 100954 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100954 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MAHENDRA S/O. PUKHRAJ JAIN, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO 1525 , MARUTI GALLI BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001. 2. VIJAY S/O. MADANLAL PORAWAL, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO 1525 , MARUTI GALLI BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL AND SRI SAJID GOODWALA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KHADEBAZAR POLICE STATION, R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH, AT: DHARWAD – 580 008. 2. ARJUN NAGAPPA HARIJAN, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O: PATTIHAL KB, TAL: BAILHONGAL, NOW AT MARUTI GALLI, TAL AND DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.1937/2022 WITH RESPECT TO KHADE BAZAR P.S. CRIME Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1999 CRL.P No. 100954 of 2024 NO.25/2022 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 336, 337 AND 304-A R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC III, BELAGAVI WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THERIEN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2 are at the doors of this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.1937/2022 registered for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC inter alia. 2. Heard Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Sharad v. Magadum, learned AGA for respondent No.1. 3. This Court, qua accused No.3/architect of the building, had quashed the proceedings owing to the fact that there cannot be rash or negligent act of an architect. The petitioners though owners of building cannot be alleged of any rash or negligent act for the death of the brother-in-law of the second respondent/complaint as it was an accident not because of negligence or not a - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1999 CRL.P No. 100954 of 2024 negligence on the part of the petitioners. If further proceedings are permitted to continue against these petitioners, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ambalal D Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat1 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “9. It is, however, the case of respondent State that had the appellant not given a single batch number to all the four lots when he prepared the offending glucose saline, the analysis by the Chief Analyst would have certainly discovered the heavy deposits of lead nitrate in the sodium chloride and the lot which contained this would have been rejected. As the appellant has been negligent in conforming to the rules, the deaths were the direct consequence of that negligence. 10. It appears to us that in a prosecution for an offence under Section 304A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of a rash or negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death. If that were so, the acquittal of the appellant for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would itself have been an answer and we would have then examined to what extent additional evidence of his acquittal would have to be allowed, but since that is not the criteria, we have to determine whether the appellant's act in giving only one batch number to all the four lots manufactured on 12-11-62 in preparing batch No. 211105 was the cause of deaths and whether those deaths were a direct consequence of the appellants' act, that is, whether the appellant's act is the direct result of a rash and negligent act and that act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. As observed by Sir 1 (1972) 3 SCC 525 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1999 CRL.P No. 100954 of 2024 Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap (1902) 4 Bom LR 679 the act causing the deaths "must be the cause causans; It is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non". This view has been adopted by this Court in several decisions. In Kurban Hussein Moham-medali Rangwala v. State of Maharashtra , the accused who had manufactured wet paints without a licence was acquitted of the charge under Section 304A because it was held that the mere fact that he allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it would be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the accused responsible for the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of the burners within the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored though this circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out, but was also due to the overflowing of froth out of the barrels. In Suieman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra the accused who was driving a car only with a learner's licence without a trainer by his side, had injured a person. It was held that that by itself was not sufficient to warrant a conviction under Section 304A. It would be different if it can be established as in the case of Bhalchandra v. State of Maharashtra that deaths and injuries caused by the contravention of a prohibition in respect of the substances which are highly dangerous as in the case of explosives in a cracker factory which are considered to be of a highly hazardous and dangerous nature having sensitive composition where even friction or percussion could cause an explosion, that contravention would be the causa causans.” 4. In the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court and the factum of accused Nos.1 and 2 being the owners of the property, cannot be held to have acted in a rash or a negligent manner. Permitting further - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1999 CRL.P No. 100954 of 2024 proceedings would thus become an abuse of the process of the law, and result in miscarriage of justice. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.1937/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 336, 337 and 304A read with Section 34 of the IPC, stands quashed. (iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and would not become applicable or binding on any other accused in the impugned case. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NAA/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43