- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2350 CRL.P No. 104355 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104355 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MAYIL RAMALINGAM, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: OPERATOR OF KA-01/MN-3566, R/O: PELAPPADI, SALEM, TAMILNADU-637 101. 2. SENTHIL @ SENTHILARAJA KANDASWAMY, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: MANAGER, R/O: 3A, SANANRAPALAGAM, TQ: TIRCHENGODE, NAMAKKAL, TAMILNADU-638 112. 3. KANDASWAMY S.K. KALIYANNAGOUNDAR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF KA-01/MN-3566, R/O: 3A, SANARAPALAGAM, TQ: TIRCHENGODE, NAMAKKAL, TAMILNADU-638 112. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.B. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD, THROUGH HANAGAL POLICE STATION. 2. UMEHSYYA NISSIMAYYA PUJAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: AT KADASHETTI HALLI, TQ: HANAGAL, DIST: HAVERI-581 104. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; R2-SERVED) B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.11 15:51:36 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2350 CRL.P No. 104355 of 2022 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3/PETITIONERS, IN S.C. NO.81/2022, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 287, 304 R/W 34 OF IPC. 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 petitioners/accused have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 287 and 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the owner of land bearing R.S. No. 60/02, measuring 2 acres and 20 guntas. The contractor, Veeresh Hiremath, engaged a borewell machine, which was sent to the said land on 06.01.2020 at about 6:00 a.m. The informant, along with another person, Shivalingaiah, transported the borewell machine to the land. They initially attempted to dig a borewell beside the road, which was unsuccessful. Subsequently, they began drilling at another point on the same land. At the commencement of drilling, a 3-ft iron pipe was inserted, but it bent to one side. The borewell operator then instructed the cleaner, deceased Ramdhani, to position the pipe correctly using a rod. Upon applying pressure, the rod broke into pieces, striking the deceased on the cheek with significant force, causing a severe bleeding injury. The deceased succumbed to his injuries while being transported for medical assistance. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2350 CRL.P No. 104355 of 2022 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even assuming the allegations in the charge sheet to be true, they do not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute an offence under Section 304 of the IPC, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It was contended that the petitioners had no intention to cause bodily injury. 4. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State argued that due to the negligent act of the borewell machine operator, the cleaner sustained fatal injuries. Therefore, the petitioners, being the managers, owners, and operators of the borewell, are liable for an offence under Section 304 of the IPC. 5. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties, the following aspects are noted: 6. The charge-sheet material indicates that a relative of the deceased transported his body to his native place in Chitrangi District, Chhattisgarh. However, none of the legal representatives of the deceased cleaner have given statements to the prosecution. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ambala D. Bhat v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1972) 3 SCC 525, has held as follows: “(i) In a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A of IPC, the court has to examine whether the alleged act of the accused is the direct result of a rash and negligent act and whether that act was the proximate and efficient cause of death without the intervention of another’s negligence. The mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2350 CRL.P No. 104355 of 2022 regulations while performing an act does not automatically establish an offence under Section 304-A IPC. The act causing death must be the causa causans; it is not sufficient that it was merely the causa sine qua non. The court must determine whether the act of the accused was the causa causans or whether an intervening cause broke the chain of causation, thereby making the accused’s act—though negligent—not the immediate cause of death. The court must also consider whether the act amounted to gross negligence or recklessly negligent conduct. The fact that multiple lives were lost, however shocking and regrettable, should not cloud the judicial mind when appreciating the evidence.” 8. In the present case, the deceased acted on the instructions of the borewell operator to adjust the pipe using a rod. Upon applying pressure, the rod broke into pieces and struck the deceased on the cheek. This incident, by itself, cannot be considered the direct, proximate, and efficient cause of death attributable to the petitioners’ rash and negligent act. Consequently, the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 304-A IPC are not satisfied. 9. In view of the foregoing, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. [mention case number], pending before the [mention court name], insofar as they pertain to the petitioners, are hereby quashed. 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2350 CRL.P No. 104355 of 2022 ii) The impugned proceedings in S.C.No.81/2022 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, is hereby quashed. iii) Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38