SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
Santosh S/o B Rajgopal Naidu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11200 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5586 OF 2024



Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. SANGAMESH R B.,ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI. VIJAY KUMAR MAJJGE, SPP-11 A/W SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.

For liability under Section 304A IPC, there must be gross negligence with direct causation; mere negligence is insufficient.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304A - Quashing of FIR and proceedings - Petitioners sought to quash FIR and proceedings related to alleged negligence resulting in death during contract work - Court found no proximate cause linking petitioners to the incident, as the contractor had assumed full responsibility for safety measures - The investigations were deemed inadequate due to dropping the contractor from the charge sheet - Court emphasized that mere negligence is insufficient for culpability under Section 304A; gross negligence is required. (Paras 4, 9, 11, 12)

(B) Negligence - Definition and standards - The court reiterated that for liability under Section 304A, negligence must be of a gross nature and that mere negligence leading to civil liability does not suffice for criminal liability. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, owners of a property, were implicated in a worker's death due to electrocution while performing contracted work, despite the contractor's responsibility for safety measures.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed proceedings against the petitioners, citing lack of direct causation and inadequate investigation into the contractor's role.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners could be held liable under Section 304A of IPC for the worker's death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the petitioners could not be held liable as there was no direct nexus or proximate cause linking them to the incident, and only the contractor bore responsibility for safety.

Result: Petitions allowed; proceedings quashed.

ORAL ORDER

In these petitions, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

IN Crl.P.No.11200/2023

"Quash the FIR in Crime No.259/2023, pending before the Hon'ble 37th Addl. CMM Court at Bengaluru, for the offence punishable u/s. 304(A) of IPC , filed by the Jayanagar Police, Bengaluru."

IN Crl.P.No.5586/2021

"Quash the proceedings in CC.No.30980/2023 (arising out of Cr.No.259/23, pending on the file of XLV Addl. CMM Court at Bengaluru, alleging offences under Section 304-A, 34 of IPC filed by 1st respondent police,"

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. The respondent No.2 having been served with notice of the petitions, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner - Santosh in Crl.P.No.11200/2023 is the son of Sri. B. Rajagopal Naidu, who is the petitioner in the connected petition in Crl.P.No.5586/2024. Both the petitioners are the joint/co-owners of the premises in question bearing Municipal No.1/18, 27th Cross, 4th Block, Jayanagar in relation to which, a water level indicator installation and tank cleaning contract was entered into between the petitioner in Crl.P.No.11200/2023 and one Sri. Chandrakumar, who was the contractor and entrusted with the said work in terms of agreement dated 12.08.2023, which reads as under:

"WATER LEVEL INDICATOR INSTALLATION & TANK CLEANING CONTRACT

THIS WATER LEVEL INDICATOR INSTALLATION & TANK CLEANING CONTRACT IS MADE AND EXECUTED ON THIS THE 12th DAY OF AUGUST 2023 [12.08.2023] AT BENGALURU

BY AND BETWEEN:

SRI.BOLLINENI SANTOSH BABU,

Aged 46 years,

Son of Sri.B.Rajagopal Naidu,

Residing at No.552, 9th Cross,

J.P.Nagar 3rd Phase, Bengaluru-560 078

Hereinafter called and referred to as the "FIRST PARTY/OWNER" (which term wherever it appears hereunder and if the context so permits and requires shall always be deemed to mean and include his legal heirs, executors, successors, legal representatives, attorneys and assigns, etc.,) of THE ONE PART;

AND:

SRI.CHANDRAKUMAR,

Aged 40 years,

Son of Sri. Puttashetty,

No.45, Ganapathi Temple Road,

Near DSS School, Konankunte,

Bengaluru-560 062

Hereinafter called and referred to as the "SECOND PARTY /CONTRACTOR" (which term wherever it appears hereunder and if the context so permits and requires shall always be deemed to mean and include his legal heirs, executors, successors, legal representatives, attorneys and assigns, etc.,) of THE OTHER PART;

WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS the FIRST PARTY herein is the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing Municipal No. 1/18, 11th Cross, 27th Cross 4th Block Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011, consisting of a commercial building.

AND WHEREAS the SECOND PARTY who is a water level controller and tank cleaning contractor has approached the FIRST PARTY and has represented to the FIRST PARTY that the SECOND PARTY has the technical know-how in task of water level controlling and overhead tank & sump cleaning and has thereby requested the FIRST PARTY to entrust the SECOND PARTY with the work of installation and cleaning of overhead tanks and sumps including water level controller.

WHEREAS, now this Agreement is being executed for recording and confirming the terms and conditions discussed and deliberated between the FIRST PARTY and the SECOND PARTY herein.

NOW THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS:

1. The SECOND PARTY shall be entitled to undertake the task of installation and cleaning of overhead tanks and sumps including water level controller at the building of the FIRST PARTY situated at Municipal No. 1/18, 11th Cross, 27th Cross 4th Block Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 011.

2. The SECOND PARTY undertakes to complete the aforesaid work in the aforementioned property within 20 days from the date of execution of this Agreement.

3. The SECOND PARTY shall ensure all the necessary safety and security measures in respect of carrying out the aforesaid wo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top