- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6003 CRL.P No. 9368 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9368 OF 2022 BETWEEN: NESTAA DEEPTHI W/O AMARNATHA CHOWDARY TATI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT: B002, SAI KRUPA ELITE, FERNS CITY ROAD, SBF HEALTH CARE DODDANEKUNDI, MARATHAHALLY POST BENGALURU - 560 037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY BAIL TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. SRI. SRIDHAR, S/O MUNINARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT UTTARAHALLI VILLAGE, CHIKKAJALA POST, BENGALURU NORTH - 562 157 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 R2 - SD/-) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3947/2021 (CR.NO.109/2020 OF BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL BAIL TRAFFIC POLICE STATION) Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6003 CRL.P No. 9368 of 2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 279, 304A OF IPC AND SEC.146 R/W 196 OF IMV ACT IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.2 in Cr.No.109/2020 of Bengaluru International Airport Traffic Police Station pending in CC No.3947/2021 on the file of learned Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Section 146 R/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short 'the MV Act') is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her. 2. Heard Sri. Lethif B., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Asma Kouser, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 remained absent despite service of notice. Hence, his argument is taken as nil. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6003 CRL.P No. 9368 of 2022 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Partly in the Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent No.2 has filed the first information with Bengaluru International Airport Traffic Police Station (BIAL) alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC. The FIR in Cr.No.109/2020 came to be registered. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the above said offences. Accused No.2 is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sections 279, 304A of IPC could not have been invoked against the present petitioner, as she is only - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6003 CRL.P No. 9368 of 2022 the owner of the car in question which caused the accident, while the same was being driven by accused No.1. 5. The learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 - State concedes this fact and submits that she has no objection to quash the criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC. However, she submits that there is contravention of Section 196 of MV Act, which is punishable under Section 146 of MV Act for which the petition is answerable. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner being accused No.2 was the owner of the offending car, which is said to have caused the accident while the same was being driven by accused No.1. The concept of vicarious liability cannot be made applicable against the petitioner and she cannot be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC, when admittedly, she was not the driver of the car in question at the time of alleged accident. Therefore, criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 279 and 304A of IPC is liable to be quashed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6003 CRL.P No. 9368 of 2022 7. Regarding Section 146 of MV Act, it refers to requirement of vehicle insurance against third party risks. The contravention of the same would result in invoking Section 196 of MV Act which, prescribes the penalty. Prima facie, there are materials to constitute contravention of Section 146, punishable under Section 196 of MV Act. Therefore, the criminal proceedings for the same is not liable to be quashed. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be allowed in part. 8. Accordingly, I answer the above point partly in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed in part. (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in CC No.3947/2021 (Cr.No.109/2020 of BIAL Police Station) pending on the file of learned Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of IPC is hereby quashed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6003 CRL.P No. 9368 of 2022 (iii) The prayer to quash the criminal proceedings for the offence under section 146 r/w section 196 of MV Act is rejected. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7