IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6452 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
Vinod R. Jakati Son of Raghavendra K. Jakati, Aged 49 years, #79, 1st Main, 3rd Cross, Defence Colony, Sahakarnagar, Bengaluru-560 092. …Petitioner (By Sri. C.V. Nagesh, Senior Advocate a/w Sri. Abhilash Vaidyanathan, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Bidadi Police Station, Ramanagara Rural Circle, Ramanagara District, Bidadi-562 109.
2. Mr. Shivegowda B.N. S/o Ramegowda, Aged about 40 years, Residing at No.48, 5th Cross, IIIrd Stage, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru-560 096 ... Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R-1; Sri. Ravishankar, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR dated 03.09.2015 filed by respondent No.1 bearing Crime No.320/2015 pending before the Prl. C.J. (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Ramanagara (Annexure- A) and quash the complaint dated 28.8.2015 filed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-B).
This Criminal Petition coming on for Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of FIR against him in Crime No.220/2015, for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Undisputedly, the petitioner was working as a Human Resource Manager at HCCB. According to the complainant, on the date of incident i.e., on 07.05.2014, he was involved in loading and unloading of goods manufactured by the aforesaid Coca cola company in its Bidadi plant and at that time, on account of rash and negligent operation of a crane by its driver, it hit against the wall, as a result, the wall collapsed and the complainant fell under the debris, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to hospital and was given treatment. A complaint came to be lodged 03.09.2015 alleging that all the accused persons including the petitioner herein were guilty of causing grievous hurt to the complainant. In the complaint, it is further alleged that all the accused persons conspired together and intimidated the complainant not to take recourse to legal action against petitioner. FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for petitioner submits that as per Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, the person who caused grievous hurt alone could be held liable for the alleged offence. The allegations made in the complaint indicate that the alleged act was committed by the driver of the crane and not by the petitioner herein. The petitioner also cannot be held vicariously liable for the act committed by the driver of the crane. Hence, the implication of the petitioner in the alleged offence is illegal and an abuse of the process of the Court.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor however argued in support of the impugned action contending that the matter is under investigation and therefore, there is no case for quashing the proceedings.
6. On going through the averments made in the complaint, it is clear that the complainant sustained grievous injuries on account of fall of the wall. According to the complainant, the said wall collapsed on account of rash and negligent handling of the crane by its driver. There are no allegations whatsoever, in the entire complaint that the petitioner herein was instrumental in causing the alleged act. Except making general and omnibus allegations that all the officers of the Coca cola company, threatened and intimidated the complainant not to take legal recourse in respect of the alleged incident, there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner herein is guilty of the offence under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioner herein was responsible for the management and day-to-day affairs of the company so as to hold the petitioner vicariously liable for the act of the driver, even if it is assumed that the said act was committed by the driver in discharge of his duty. In the absence of any such allegations, the prosecution of the petitioner, in my considered opinion is wholly illegal and cannot be sustained.
7. Learned Senior counsel has referred to the decisions of this Court in Sri. M. Srinivas Vs. The State represented by Yelahanka Traffic Police in Crl.P.No.9124/2016, dated 15.02.2019 and Melvin Kumar and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Crl.P.No.2619/2014, dated 31.01.2019, wherein the aspect of negligence has been discussed by this Court; but in the instant case, there being no allegations whatsoever, attracting the ingredients of the above offence, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner cannot be held liable to answer the charges leveled in the FIR. As a result the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The FIR in Crime No. 320/2015 is quashed only in so far as the petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned.
The investigation shall proceed against other accused persons in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE BMC