- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1551 CRL.P No. 100516 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100516 OF 2020 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ANAND S/O BHEEMARAO KULKARNI, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER-II, UTP SUB DIV. NO.2, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI-581 115. 2. SURESH Y. METI S/O DEVAREDDY METI, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-II, SUB-DIV, YETTINHOLE PROJECT, TUMKUR, DIST: TUMKUR-572 101. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HALAGERI POLICE STATION, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-581 115. 2. RIYAZ AHAMAD K.R. S/O RAHIMANSAB BELAKERI, AGE: 27 YEARS, PCC: TEACHER, R/O: KENGANAHALLI, TQ: HONNALI, DIST: SHIMOGA-577 202. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NINAD T. KWATIHALLI AND SRI. SAJID GOODWALA, ADVOCATES FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 304A OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER DATED 19/02/2020 OF THE B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.29 15:27:22 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1551 CRL.P No. 100516 of 2020 LEARNED 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., RANEBENNUR IN C.C.NO.196/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AS NULL AND VOID IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.01.2019, between 9:30 p.m. and 12:00 a.m., while the complainant’s father was riding a motorcycle from Kudupali Village to Kengal Halli, he fell into a ditch in the middle of the Chikkamagnor-Sangapur road and succumbed to his injuries. The petitioners, Assistant Executive Engineers of the Upper Tunga Project, are alleged to have failed to take precautionary measures to indicate the presence of the ditch on the road. It is alleged that this negligent act led to the accident and the subsequent death of the complainant’s father. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged negligence occurred while the petitioners were discharging their official duties. Thus, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC could only have been taken after obtaining sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Furthermore, it was argued that the road, after being constructed, was handed over to the Zilla Panchayat for maintenance on 29.04.2017, and since the incident occurred on 06.01.2019, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for its - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1551 CRL.P No. 100516 of 2020 maintenance. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 (complainant) and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 (State) submitted that the charge-sheet material clearly indicates negligence on the part of the petitioners. They contended that the veracity of the allegations should be examined during the trial and sought the dismissal of the petition. 5. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the following points are noted: I) The road in question was constructed under the supervision of the petitioners, who were serving as Assistant Executive Engineers of the Upper tunga project. II) The road was handed over to the Zilla Panchayat on 29.04.2017. Since then, the Zilla Panchayat was responsible for its maintenance. The incident occurred on 06.01.2019, nearly two years after the road was handed over. III) Consequently, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for maintaining the road or putting up precautionary measures to indicate the ditch formed due to heavy rains. 6. The petitioners undertook the construction of the road in the discharge of their official duties. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides that no court shall take cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed by public - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1551 CRL.P No. 100516 of 2020 servants in the discharge of their official duties, except with prior sanction from the State Government. The Supreme Court in A. Srinivasulu v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, (2023) 13 SCC 705, held that sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary not only for acts done in the discharge of official duties but also for acts purported to be done under the color or authority of such duties. In this case, the petitioners acted in their capacity as public servants while constructing the road. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ambala D. Bhatt v. The State of Gujarat, (1972) 3 SCC 525, held that to prosecute an individual under Section 304A IPC, the court must establish that the accused’s rash or negligent act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death, without any intervening factors. The court further held that merely contravening certain rules or regulations does not establish an offence under Section 304A IPC. 8. In the present case, even assuming the petitioners failed to provide precautionary measures, such an act cannot be considered the direct or proximate cause of the complainant’s father’s death to satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 304A IPC. 9. In light of the above, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1551 CRL.P No. 100516 of 2020 ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.196/2020 pending on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 and 2, the petitioners herein, is hereby quashed. iii) However, this order shall not preclude the second respondent from claiming compensation or damages from the concerned authorities in accordance with the law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 46