IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRL.P.NO.4517/2019 BETWEEN 1. PITHCHIKALA VENKATESHWARA RAO MANAGING DIRECTOR, AMRUTH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ETHINAHOLE PROJECT, HANBAL HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN-573134.
2. SRI. RAJAN MANAGER, AMRUTH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ETHINAHOLE PROJECT, HANBAL HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE BY SAKALESHPURA RURAL P.S. REPT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MAHENDRA KOKATNOOR S/O MADHUKAR AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, NO-47, C/O: ARJUN. H.KOUJALAGI, ANAND NILAYA AKKI COLONY, ...PETITIONERS ADARSH NAGARA, BIJAPURA TOWN, VIJAYAPUR-586101, KARNATAKA.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, HCGP FOR R1, SRI H.T.JAGADEESH, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FIR CRIME NO.71/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, SAKALESHPURA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.304-A OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and the learned HCGP.
2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner no.1 is the Managing Director of the Construction Company and petitioner no.2 is its Manager, which is executing an irrigation project in Sakleshpur Taluk. That during the course of execution, one of the cranes which was being used met with an accident resulting in the death of an employee i.e., an Engineer. It is contended that the said Engineer was incharge of the site and responsible for all the measures and day today affairs in the site. He would contend that the registration of FIR against the Managing Director who is in no way connected with the affairs of the site, is uncalled for and amounts to an unwarranted intrusion in the life of the petitioners.
3. It is not in dispute that the complainant is the brother of the deceased. It is also not in dispute an unnatural death has occurred in the construction site of the company. Apparently, the investigation is still at a nascent stage. No incriminating material has been discovered nor is any allegations leveled against the involvement of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would not be appropriate to intervene and scuttle the investigation at this stage. It would be appropriate if liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court in the event of the investigating agency recording any adverse findings or laying any charges against the petitioners. Reserving such liberty, petition stands disposed off.
Sd/- JUDGE KK CT-HR