- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13225 CRL.P No. 664 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 664 OF 2019 BETWEEN: D. SWAMINATHAN S/O. MR. R. DANDAPANI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS PRESIDENT PRESTIGE LANGLEIGH APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION ECC ROAD, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU-560 066 …PETITIONER (BY SRI C. K. NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LEKHA CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHO WHITEFIELD POLICE, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU-560 066 REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-01 2. ANJINEYALU G. S/O. VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS REDDAVARAPALLI VILLAGE TANAKALLU MANDAL ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-515 571 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. R. PATIL, H.C.G.P FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED AND UNREPREESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13225 CRL.P No. 664 of 2019 (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS (ANNEXURE-B) AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.10050/2018 ON THE FILE OF I A.C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged prosecution launched against him by the respondent No.1 in C.C. No.10050/2018 pending trial before the I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The respondent No. 2 informed respondent No.1 on 03.02.2018 that his brother, who was working at Prestige Langleigh Apartment was unwell and was shifted to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. He alleged that the Manager of the apartment named Mr.Kiran and the STP contractor - Mr.Shivashankar were responsible for the death of his brother, as they did not take sufficient precautionary measures before deputing him to work at STP unit. Based on the said information, respondent No.1 registered Crime - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13225 CRL.P No. 664 of 2019 No.46/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, a post-mortem was conducted which disclosed that the deceased died due to "asphyxia" consequent upon consumption of substances containing ethyl alcohol. The viscera and its contents, blood sample of the deceased that were secured were subjected to forensic examination, which disclosed the presence of ethyl alcohol of 68 milligrams per 100 ml of blood. The Investigating Officer after recording the relevant mahazars and recording the statements of the material witnesses, filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The Trial Court in terms of an order dated 09.01.2019 took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC and issued process. The petitioner being the president of the Prestige Langleigh Apartment Owners Association was arraigned as accused No.1 and he being aggrieved by the charge sheet filed against him as well as the order taking cognizance, is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13225 CRL.P No. 664 of 2019 4 (i). The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Apartment Owner's Association had entrusted the operation and maintenance of the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) to S.V. Services in terms of an agreement dated 20.03.2016. He contends that the responsibility of maintaining the STP was with S.V. Services and therefore the petitioner was in no way responsible for the offence punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC. He further contended that the post-mortem report disclosed that the deceased died due to 'asphyxia consequent upon consumption of substance containing ethyl alcohol'. Therefore, he submits that there is no material to indicate that the petitioner was negligent in maintaining the STP or that such negligence on the part of the petitioner was the cause of death. He therefore submits that the prosecution launched against the petitioner is without any basis and amounts to an abuse of the process of law. (ii) He further contends that the petitioner cannot be accused of an offence under Section 304A of IPC, particularly when the deceased was not employed by the petitioner and the petitioner was not responsible for the maintenance of the STP, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13225 CRL.P No. 664 of 2019 and the said responsibility being with S.V. Services. He therefore, prayed that the impugned prosecution be set aside in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand contended that the STP was owned by the Apartment Association and therefore the death caused due to the negligence in the maintenance of the STP is attributable to the petitioner who is the President of the Apartment Association. He therefore contends that the charge sheet filed against the petitioner is justified. He further contends that the contentions raised by the petitioner in this petition are all questions of fact which have to be adjudicated upon a full- fledged trial and therefore prays that this Court may not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Criminal procedure Code. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State. The respondent No.2 though served with the notice has not appeared. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13225 CRL.P No. 664 of 2019 7. The death caused is not in dispute. The question that arises for consideration is: "Whether the death was due to negligence on the part of the petitioner or due to any act attributable to the petitioner?" 8. The petitioner is the President of Prestige Langleigh Apartment Owner's Association. The maintenance of the STP is apparently entrusted to S.V. Services, which is proficient in maintenance of sewage treatment plants. It also appears that the deceased was employed by S.V. Services. Therefore, unless there was tangible material to show that the petitioner was negligent or was responsible for not maintaining the STP in good order, the respondent No.1 could not have arraigned the petitioner as an accused No.1. 9. This apart, it appears from the post-mortem report that the deceased died due to 'asphyxia as a result of consuming substance containing ethyl alcohol'. The forensic examination also indicates that the deceased had consumed alcohol. Therefore, it is not known whether the death was due to any dangerous or noxious fumes emanating from the STP or - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13225 CRL.P No. 664 of 2019 due to some other reason, or whether it was on account of the consumption of alcohol by the deceased. 10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is allowed. The prosecution launched by the respondent No.1 in C.C. No.10050/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC, pending trial before I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is quashed in so far as a petitioner is concerned Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18