- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3221 CRL.P No. 103078 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103078 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. RAM KUMAR S/O. KARM CHAND AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. TELEPHONE EXCHANGE ROAD, MODEL TOWN, NARWANA, NARWANA JIND, HARYANA-126116. 2. SHRI. MOHIT JANDU S/O. HARINIWAS JANDU AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MODA KHERA (31), R/O. MEDA KHERA, DIST. HISAR HARYANA-125052. 3. SHRI. KULDEEP KUMAR S/O. HARINIWAS JANDU AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.836, MODA KHERA (31), DIST. HISAR, HARYANA-125052. 4. SHRI. NAGENDRA PRATAP SINGH S/O. RAMPAL SINGH, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. 18, NAGLA MADHO, SASNI, HATHRAS UTTAR PRADESH-204216. 5. SHRI. DAYANAND S/O. RAMJI LAL AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. GOTHYA BARI, CHURU, RAJASTHAN-331023. 6. SHRI. RAJESH KUMAR S/O. SHEO NARAYAN AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. GHURSAL (30), HISAR, HARYANA-125052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:25 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3221 CRL.P No. 103078 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PSI, HUBBALLI SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, REPTD BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. 2. SHRI. RUSHABH S/O. NABHIRAJ DAYANNAVAR AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. H.NO. 499, 13TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR, SATTUR, TQ AND DIST. DHARWAD-580009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. V.M.SHEELVANT, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SE. 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 10.09.2024 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN HUBBALLI SUB-URBAN P.S. CRIME NO. 125/2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 125(b), 105 AND 190 OF BNS, 2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI, IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 6 ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners, who are under investigation for offences punishable under Sections 125(b) and 190 of BNS, 2023, are before this Court. 2. The respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR alleging that on 10.09.2024, while his father was riding his motorbike near Old Court Circle, an iron rod fell on his head at the site of a flyover - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3221 CRL.P No. 103078 of 2024 bridge construction. He was admitted to Vivekanand Hospital, where he subsequently succumbed to his injuries. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are directors of the company undertaking the flyover construction and were not responsible for the day-to-day activities of the project. Consequently, the essential elements to constitute offences under Sections 125(b), 105, and 190 of BNS, 2023 are absent. He further contended that the investigation report disclosed that no nets or barricades were in place to prevent the public from accessing the area under the bridge. Despite the precautions taken, when the deceased was riding his motorbike below the flyover, an iron rod fell on his head, causing injuries that resulted in his death. In support, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Limited and Others [(2022) 15 SCC 430]. 4. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioners, as directors of the company constructing the flyover, are responsible for the safety measures adopted by the company. He argued that even if the petitioners did not have a direct role in the day-to-day safety measures, the accident was caused by the rash and negligent acts of the company, and the veracity of the allegations must be investigated. At this stage, the registration of the FIR does not warrant any definitive inference. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3221 CRL.P No. 103078 of 2024 6. It is admitted that the petitioners are the directors of the company undertaking the flyover construction, that they are residents of Haryana, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh, and that they were not involved in the day-to-day construction activities of the flyover bridge. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravindranatha Bajpe (supra) has held that merely because respondents No. 2 to 5, 7, and 8 hold positions such as Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director, Deputy General Manager, Planner, or Executor, they cannot be held vicariously liable unless there are specific allegations and averments against them regarding their individual roles. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ambala D. Bhatt v. The State of Gujarat [(1972) 3 Supreme Court Cases 525] held that in a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, the court must determine whether the accused’s act was the direct result of a rash and negligent act that was the proximate and efficient cause of the death, without any intervening negligence. The mere contravention of certain rules or regulations does not establish an offence under Section 304-A. The act causing death must be the causa causans; it is not sufficient that it was the causa sine qua non. The court must decide whether the accused’s act was the direct and immediate cause of the death or whether an intervening cause broke the chain of causation, thereby negating the accused’s liability. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3221 CRL.P No. 103078 of 2024 9. A perusal of the FIR indicates that there is no specific overt act attributable to each of the petitioners showing that the accident was caused by their rash and negligent acts—an essential element for initiating criminal proceedings against them under Sections 125(b) and 190 of BNS, 2023. In such circumstances, the continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned FIR in Crime No. 125/2024, registered by the Hubballi Sub-Urban Police Station, insofar as it relates to petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 6, is hereby quashed. 10. The Investigating Officer is directed to proceed against the other accused in accordance with law. 11. The petitioners have handed over a demand draft for Rs. 2,00,000 to the complainant, who is present before this Court, as compensation on humanitarian grounds. This, however, shall not be construed as an admission of liability to pay compensation. 12. The respondent No. 2 is at liberty to approach the competent authority to claim compensation in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38