- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7281 CRL.P No. 100262 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100262 OF 2020 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS) BETWEEN: KASHIMASAB S/O. MALLIKASAB MUDDI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER, R/O. SECTOR NO.35, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI B. G. INDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BAGALKOTE TRAFFIC P.S., NOW REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD. 2. KASTURI S/O. UMESH UGAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR OLD IB, BAGALKOTE-587101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SHRI SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED IN BAGALKOTE TRAFFIC P.S.CRIME NO.7/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 279, 304A OF IPC AND SECTION 181(3) OF THE INDIAN MOTORS ACT, 1988 AND ALSO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BAGALKOTE IN C.C.NO.507/2019 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7281 CRL.P No. 100262 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) 2. Heard Sri B.G.Indi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri Siddappa Sajjan, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of charge sheet filed in C.C.No.507/2019 in Crime No.7/2019 of Bagalakote Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and Section 181(3) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 31.01.2019 at 10:00 a.m. the accused Khasimsab, the driver of the tam-tom vehicle bearing registration No.KA.29 A. 4863, came from Lokayukta Office, Navanagar and proceeded towards LIC Cross with rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.29 H.8657 while overtaking the same. Hence, rider of the motorcycle Babu sustained with several injuries and succumbed to the injuries - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7281 CRL.P No. 100262 of 2020 on 05.02.2019 in the Hospital. Hence, the jurisdictional Police have registered the case in Crime No.7/2019. The investigating Officer has investigated the case and filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. 5. After filing of the charge sheet, the jurisdictional Court took cognizance of the offences against the accused. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, on the perusal of the entire charge sheet it does not disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the case and there are no eye witnesses to the incident to say that the petitioner has committed the offences. Further, name of the petitioner was not shown in the FIR and only during the course of investigation his name is revealed. 7. Learned counsel further contended that in MVC.No.555/2019, PW.1 who being the eyewitness to the incident has categorically stated that at the time of accident, the owner of the vehicle by name Nazeerahamad Mugatosab Hunashikatti was driving the tam-tam vehicle. Hence, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7281 CRL.P No. 100262 of 2020 petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and thus, prayed for allowing the petition. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State has contended that during the course of investigation, the name of petitioner is revealed. Hence, his name is included in the charge sheet and there is prima facie material against the petitioner so as to attract Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 181(3) of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 10. Learned High Court Government Pleader further contended that, the petitioner has disputed his identity and also disputed the question of fact and hence, the petitioner cannot be disputed question of fact under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition. 11. Perused the material available on record. 12. No doubt, the name of petitioner is not shown in the FIR. The alleged incident took place on 31.01.2019 and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7281 CRL.P No. 100262 of 2020 deceased died on 05.02.2019. Only after registration of the FIR, during the course of investigation, the name of petitioner has been revealed by eye witnesses as he was the driver of tam-tam vehicle. Further, CW.10 has clearly stated that on 31.01.2019, the petitioner-Kashimasab son of Mallikasab Muddi, was driving the tam-tam vehicle bearing registration No.KA.29/A-4836. As per column No.17 of the charge sheet, Investigating Officer has has opined that on 31.01.2019, petitioner was the driver of tam-tam vehicle. 13. In this case, the petitioner has disputed his identity and also the facts of the case. Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner cannot dispute the question of fact in view of the ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of Maharashtra and others1. 14. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceeding is only when an allegation is made in the FIR or charge sheet constituted the ingredients of offence alleged, interference by the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent the 1 AIR 2021 SC 1918 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7281 CRL.P No. 100262 of 2020 abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the Court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. Admittedly, the accident occurred in the year 2019, now the matter is pending before the trial Court since 6 years. 15. From perusal of the charge sheet, prima facie it is made out that the ingredient of offence alleged against the accused is made out. Hence, his prayer for quashment of criminal proceedings would not arise. Accordingly, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE EM, AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33