IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5606 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SHRI. NATARAJU C @ NATRAJU C S/O CHIKKA VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.7, 4TH MAIN SHIVANAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD BENGALURU-560 010 … PETITIONER (BY SHRI. K.R. NAGARAJA FOR SHRI. V. VISWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. STATE BY KYATHASANDRA P.S.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF BULD AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE-560 001 2. SHRI. SYED JAFFAR S/O SYED SAMI AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/AT C/O RAFIQ HOUSE 1ST CROSS, BARLINE ROAD TUMKUR-572 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6465/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-I TUMKUR FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.279,337,304-A OF IPC 1860 R/W SEC.180 AND 181 OF IMV ACT, SO FOR AS PETITIONER CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER One Syed Jaffer registered FIR No.123/2015 on 18.04.2015 in Kyathasandra Police Station, Tumkur, stating that a Car bearing No.KA-03-P-9990 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a tree. The complainant and one Manjunath treated the driver of the Car namely Revanasiddu. The other inmate of the Car namely, Raju succumbed to the injuries sustained during the accident. After investigating into the FIR, the police filed charge sheet against Revanasiddu and petitioner, Nataraju for offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 279 of IPC and Sections 180 and 181 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act (‘the IMV Act’ for short). Accused no.2, Nataraju has presented this petition challenging the charge sheet.
2. Shri Nagraja K.R., learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is the owner of the car and accused No.1 Revanasiddu is the driver. Petitioner had already sold it on 10.11.2014 to accused No.1. Therefore, he is in no way connected with the car. Hence, the criminal prosecution launched against him is untenable in law.
3. Shri Rachaiah, learned HCGP submitted that though it is claimed by the petitioner that he had sold the Car, there is no material to substantiate the said claim. He produced a copy of registration certificate and argued that the Car stood in the name of petitioner as on the date of accident. However, he fairly submitted that since the driver of the car is accused No.1, charge under Sections 304-A and 279 of IPC is sustainable against the petitioner. However, he submitted that petitioner cannot be absolved of Sections 180 and 181 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, because he continued to be the owner of the vehicle as per the RTO records.
4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
5. It is not in dispute that the car was driven by accused No.1 Revanasiddu. The copy of the registration certificate produced by the learned HCGP shows that petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. It is submitted that accused No.1 has passed away. In the circumstances, petitioner shall not be liable for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC inasmuch as he was not the driver of the vehicle. However, since the petitioner continued to be the owner of the vehicle, prosecution under Sections 180 and 181 of the IMV Act cannot be quashed in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as it requires evidence. In the light of the above discussion, the following order is made:
i) Petition is allowed in part;
ii) Prosecution of petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC are quashed;
iii) It is made clear that prosecution for offences under Sections 180 and 181 of the IMV Act remain undisturbed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE Yn.