IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5820 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
UMESH G REVANKAR S/O GOVINDA REVANKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD. WOCKHARD TOWERS, 3RD FLOOR, WEST WING, C-2, ‘G’ BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA EAST MUMBAI-400091. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: M J ALVA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAVAGADA CIRCLE, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572182 2. NARASIMHAPPA P.M. S/O LATE MARAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS ADARSHA NAGARA, PAVAGADA TOWN, PAVAGADA TUMKUR DISTRICT-572182 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DT.28.9.2015 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.791/2014 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, SO FAR AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND NOW PENDING FOR DISPOSAL BEFORE THE PRL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., PAVAGADA WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES 'B' AND 'C' RESPECTIVELY.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R A charge sheet has been laid against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 279, 304A Indian Penal Code and Sections 196, 134(A) and (B), 187 and 177 of Indian Motor Vehicles, Act. 1988 in C.C.No.791/2014. Petitioner is shown as accused No.2 therein.
2. The case of the prosecution is that a tractor trailer bearing registration No.KA-06B-4591 and KA-34-1167 was owned by one Ramalingaiah. Said vehicle was financed by Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., of which the petitioner/accused No.2 was the Managing Director. The said vehicle met with an accident on 15.06.2014. The allegation against the petitioner is that he permitted the said vehicle to ply on the road without valid insurance policy.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no allegations whatsoever that the alleged incident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner herein and therefore, the charge under Section 304A as well as Section 279 of Indian Penal Code cannot stand against the petitioner. Insofar as the offence under the provision of M.V. Act are concerned, the only allegation made against the petitioner is that the petitioner has contravened the provision of Section 196 of M.V. Act by permitting use of the involved vehicle without proper insurance. He contends that the petitioner is only the Managing Director of Sriram Finance Company Limited. At the time of disbursal of the loan, all the requisite requirements of M.V.Act were complied with. If for any reasons, insurance of the vehicle was not renewed as on the date of the accident, the petitioner cannot be made liable for the said lapse. The provisions of Section 196 of M.V. Act are not attracted to the facts of the case, as such the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offence is wholly illegal and abuse of process of Court.
4. Learned Addl. SPP however has argued in support of the impugned charge sheet contending that the allegations made in the charge sheet prima-facie make out the offence against the petitioner for the offence under Section 196 of M.V. Act as well as Section 177 of M.V. Act. He fairly concedes that the allegation made in the charge sheet do not implicate the accused for the offences under Sections 304A and 279 Indian Penal Code.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
5. Section 177 of M.V. Act, is a general provision dealing punishment for the offences under the Act. The Section reads as under:-
“177. General provision for punishment of offences.—Whoever contravenes any provision of this Act or of any rule, regulation or notification made thereunder shall, if no penalty is provided for the offence be punishable for the first offence with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees, and for any second or subsequent offence with fine which may extend to three hundred rupees.”
6. In the instant case, charge sheet is laid against the petitioner for the substantive offence under section 196 of M.V. Act. The said provision prescribes that ‘Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of section 146 shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.’ 7. Section 146 deals with the necessity of insurance against third party risk. Said section primarily casts obligation on the user of the vehicle or the owner of the said vehicle not to use or allow any other person to use the motor cycle in a public place without valid insurance.
8. In view of specific language used in Sections 146 and 196 of M.V. Act the primary responsibility to keep the insurance policy validated is on the owner of said vehicle and not on the financier. It is not the case of the prosecution that at the time of disbursal of the loan, said vehicle was not insured or that the financier had undertaken to renew the license. If for any reason, the owner of the vehicle has not renewed the licence, the financier cannot be made responsible for the act of the owner of the vehicle or the user of the vehicle. That apart, the petitioner herein is only the Managing Director of the finance company. The financier is not an accused. Therefore, the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged offences being opposed to the provision of M.V. Act cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.791/2014 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada are quashed only insofar as the petitioner viz., accused No.2 is concerned.
*mn/-
Sd/- JUDGE