Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6576 OF 2025 BETWEEN:
1. ARUN KUMAR .R S/O H. RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.92232 PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK Digitally signed BENGALURU DISTRICT-562162. by ARSHIFA BAHAR KHANAM
2. MANJUNATH S.A.
Location: High S/O ANJINAPPA Court of karnataka AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.656, SONDEKOPPA DASANAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU DISTRICT-562162. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR T, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATE BY DOBBESPET POLICE STATION NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562111 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001. -2-
2. VIKRAM RONGAPI S/O RAMSINGH RONGAPI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT SHANMUGAM BUILDING TIGALARAPALYA ROAD PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560058. PERMANENT ADDRESS AT: BACHOK RONGHAR GAON VILLAGE HOWRAGHAT STATION PHULONI TOWN KARBI ANGLONG DISTRICT ASSAM STATE-782441. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. KIRAN KUMAR M, ADV., FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1388/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C NELAMANGALA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 106(1) OF BNS 2023 REGISTERED BY THE DOBBESPET P.S. AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.255/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No.1.
2. Sri Kiran Kumar M., learned counsel, files vakalat on behalf of Respondent No.2. -3-
3. The petitioners, who are facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, are before this Court seeking relief.
4. The prosecution alleges that Petitioner No.1 is the owner of the factory and Petitioner No.2 is the Production Manager. On 24.10.2024, pursuant to the directions of
Petitioner No.1, the deceased-husband of the complainant-was checking the unloaded MS material. At that time, the materials fell on him, causing fatal injuries that led to his death.
5. The parties are present before this Court and have filed an application for compounding, stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute. In terms of the
settlement, the petitioners have paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the wife of the deceased workman towards full and final settlement of her claim. The complainant has further agreed to withdraw all allegations and has no objection to quashing the impugned proceedings.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303], at paragraphs 57 and 58,
held as follows:
-4-
“Quashing of an offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between the offender and victim is not the same as compounding of offences. These are different and not interchangeable. The power to compound offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. is distinct from the inherent power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings when the ends of justice so require. The High Court may quash a criminal proceeding if it deems that continuing the proceedings would be an exercise in futility and that justice would be best served by bringing the dispute to an end.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat [(1972) 3 SCC 525], laid down the principles governing the application of Section 304A of the IPC and held:
(i) In a prosecution under Section 304A IPC, the
court must determine whether the accused’s act was the direct result of rash or negligent conduct and whether it was the proximate and efficient cause of death, without the intervention of another negligent act.
(ii) The act causing death must be the causa
causans (the immediate or proximate cause), not merely the causa sine qua non (a necessary condition). If an intervening cause breaks the chain of causation, making the accused’s act no longer the immediate cause of death, there can be no conviction. The accused’s conduct must amount to gross negligence or reckless disregard for human life. Mere loss of life, however unfortunate, cannot alone justify a conviction. -5-
8. In light of the above, there is no material to
substantiate that the death of the deceased workman was on account of rash or negligent acts of the petitioners, or that such acts were the proximate cause of death. In the absence of the essential elements required to constitute the alleged offence, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1388/2025 on the file of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 175