- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1927 CRL.P No. 101613 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101613 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. JAYARAJ S/O. BABANNA NOOLVI AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS CRICKET COACH, R/O. CHITAPUPPI PARK, HUBBALLI – 580009. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA V.NAIK AND SRI. MAHANTESH S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUBBALLI SUB URBAN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, R/BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. LAXMI W/O. MANJUNATH KADEMANI AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. LABORER, R/O. AT. HEBBALLI, TQ. DHARWAD, HUBBALLI DHARWAD-580001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SANTOSHGOUDA L.LINGANGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.6006/22 FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 304(A) OF IPC IN RESPECT OF ACCUSED NO.8 ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HUBBALLI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.11 15:51:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1927 CRL.P No. 101613 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused No.3 has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 2. The prosecution’s case is that the deceased was taken to Hubballi for plumbing work. Accused No.1 made a phone call to the complainant, informing her that accused Nos.1 and 2, despite being aware that the complainant’s husband was an alcoholic, took him for plumbing work. The prosecution further alleges that while the deceased was performing plumbing work while seated on a “Zula” (swing or suspended seat), accused Nos.1 and 2 allegedly loosened the grip on the Zula, causing the deceased to fall. As a result, he sustained severe injuries and later succumbed to them in the hospital. The petitioner/accused No.3 has been arraigned as an accused solely on the ground that he is the owner of the building where the incident occurred. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1- State, and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat [(1972) 3 SCC 525], has laid down the principles governing the application of Section 304A IPC and held as follows: “(i) In a prosecution for an offence under Section 304A IPC, the Court must examine whether the alleged act of the accused was the direct result of a rash and negligent act and whether such an act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death, without the intervention of any other negligence. The mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations while performing - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1927 CRL.P No. 101613 of 2023 an act does not necessarily constitute an offence under Section 304A IPC. (ii) The act causing death must be the causa causans (the immediate or proximate cause); it is not sufficient that it was merely the causa sine qua non (a necessary condition). The Court must determine whether the accused’s act was the direct and proximate cause of death or whether an intervening cause broke the chain of causation, thereby making the accused’s act, even if negligent, not the immediate cause of death. Further, for an offence under Section 304A IPC, the conduct must amount to gross negligence or reckless disregard for human life. The mere loss of lives, however unfortunate, cannot be the sole basis for conviction.” 5. In the present case, the petitioner/accused No.3 has been implicated solely on the basis of ownership of the building where the accident occurred. However, there are no specific allegations or evidence to suggest that the petitioner directly engaged in any act of rash or negligent conduct that led to the deceased’s death. The primary allegation is against accused Nos.1 and 2, who allegedly loosened the grip on the Zula while the deceased was seated on it. There is no material evidence in the charge sheet establishing that accused No.3’s actions or omissions were the direct, proximate, or efficient cause of the deceased’s death. 6. In the absence of any substantive material to establish a direct nexus between the petitioner’s actions and the cause of death, the continuation of criminal proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal petition is allowed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1927 CRL.P No. 101613 of 2023 ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.6006/2022 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, Dharwad, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45