NAGARAJ SON OF VENKAPPA BANDIVADDAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
CRL.P/100288/2020 · 2025-03-10
Shivashankar Amarannavar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 45227 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 45227 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4505 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100288 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJ SON OF VENKAPPA BANDIVADDAR, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BASAPUR-VILLAGE, HAVERI-TALUK, DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M R HIREMATHAD AND SRI PRAKASH BADIGER, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI, KUMARAPATTANAM POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, DHARWAD – 581 001.
2.
DISTRICT SUPERINTENDED OF POLICE, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI.
3.
DAYANAND SON OF VEERABHDRAPPA KATTIMANI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC- BAR BENDING, RESIDENT OF VIDYANAGARA, KATURU, TALUK- RANBENNUR, DISTRICT- HAVERI – 581115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., 1973, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND 1ST ADDITIONAL JMFC, RANEBENNUR AND QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN KUMARAPATTANAM P.S.CRIME NO.31/2019 (C.C.NO.483/2019) ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND 1ST ADDITIONAL JMFC, AT RANEBENNUR, PUNISHABLE
Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4505 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2020
U/S 279, 304(A) OF IPC, U/S 134(A) (B), READ WITH 187, AND 3 READ WITH 181, 146, READ WITH 196 OF M.V. ACT, THEREBY QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.483/2019 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND 1ST ADDITIONAL JMFC, AT RANEBENNUR AND PASS SUCH RELIEF OR DIRECTION OR
ORDER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THERIEN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the sole accused/petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash chargesheet filed in Kumarapattanam Police Station Crime No.31/2019, registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) IPC and Section 134(A)(B) r/w Section 187 and 3 r/w Sections 181 and 146 r/w 196 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V. Act’, for short) pending in C.C. No.483/2019 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and I Addl. JMFC, Ranebennur.
2. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint dated 02.04.2019 stating that petitioner drove his lorry bearing
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4505 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2020
Reg.No.KA-08/8291 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-17/V-3129 which was driven by deceased Monesh and the said Monesh sustained severe injuries and died in the hospital. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.31/2019 of Kumarapattanam P.S. for offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) IPC and Section 134(a)(b) of M.V. Act r/w Section 187 of M.V. Act. The Police after investigation, filed a chargesheet against the petitioner for offences under Sections 279, 304(A) IPC and under Sections 146, 181, 196, 3, 134 (A and B) and 187 of M.V. Act.
3. On the basis of the said chargesheet, a case came to be registered against the petitioner in C.C. No.483/2019 and it is pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and I Addl. JMFC, Ranebennur. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the said chargesheet and proceedings in the said criminal case.
- 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4505 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2020
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.
5.
Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner after the accident went to Police station and explained how the accident occurred. The Police did not take the said aspect and therefore, the petitioner filed complaint in C.C.No.15/2019 before Prl. Civil Judge and I Addl. JMFC, Ranebennur and subsequently the petitioner withdrew the said complaint as there was settlement out of Court. 6. He further submits that PW-1 who is the complainant and eye witness to the incident has not supported the case of the prosecution, that itself indicate that the complaint is false. On these grounds, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings. - 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4505 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2020
7. Learned AGA would contend that the trial has been commenced and one witness i.e., complainant has been examined as PW-1. The prosecution has to examine other witnesses including three eye witnesses namely, CW-6 to CW-8. The petitioner intended to prove a fact and that can be done during the course of the trial. As there are eye witnesses to the incident, the proceedings cannot be quashed only on the ground that PW-1 has not supported the case of prosecution. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused chargesheet and other materials placed on record. 9. The respondent No.2-complainant has filed complaint dated 02.04.2019 stating that petitioner/accused drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of deceased Monesh bearing Reg.No.KA-17/V-3129 and as a result, Monesh sustained injuries and died in the hospital. The said complainant i.e., respondent No.2 has been examined as
- 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4505 CRL.P No. 100288 of 2020
PW-1 and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. On perusal of the chargesheet, there are three eye witnesses to the incident and they are cited as CW-6 to CW-8. The said eye witnesses CW-6 to CW-8 are yet to be examined. Merely, because complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile is not a ground for quashing of proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner who had filed complaint has withdrawn it subsequently. Considering all these aspects, there are no grounds for quashing of proceedings as sought for. 10. In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
RKM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37