Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10654
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
VENKATESH NAIK T, J
KASHIMASAB S/O MALLIKASAB MUDDLI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
C.C.No.507/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri B.G.Indi
For the Respondents: Sri Siddappa Sajjan, High Court Government Pleader
The court upheld that sufficient prima facie evidence exists to proceed with the case, denying quashing of the charge sheet under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 279, 304A - Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 181(3) - Quashing of charge sheet - Petitioner contended no involvement in the case and lack of eyewitnesses - Court found prima facie evidence against petitioner, dismissing the petition. (Paras 3-15)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - High Court's jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings - Not applicable when ingredients of the offence are present in the FIR or charge sheet. (Paras 14-15)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed a petition for quashing charge sheet for offences under IPC and Motor Vehicles Act after being implicated as the driver in a fatal accident, despite not being named in the FIR initially.
Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient prima facie evidence against the petitioner, stating that the identity and facts cannot be disputed at this stage.
Issues: Whether the charge sheet disclosed involvement of the petitioner and whether it could be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence in the charge sheet was sufficient to proceed with the case and that quashing is only warranted to prevent abuse of process of court.
Result: Criminal petition is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charge sheet filed for offences under ipc and motor vehicles act. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner claims lack of evidence and wrongful implication. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. state argues there is prima facie evidence against the petitioner. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. court reviews evidence and finds sufficient basis to proceed. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. court clarifies limits of jurisdiction under section 482. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. final decision to dismiss the petition. (Para 15) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
2. Heard Sri B.G.Indi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri Siddappa Sajjan, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of charge sheet filed in C.C.No.507/2019 in Crime No.7/2019 of Bagalakote Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 304A of the Indian Penal Code (“ IPC ” for short) and Section 181(3) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .
4. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
On 31.01.2019 at 10:00 a.m. the accused Khasimsab, the driver of the tam-tom vehicle bearing registration No.KA.29 A. 4863, came from Lokayukta Office, Navanagar and proceeded towards LIC Cross with rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.29 H.8657 while overtaking the same. Hence, rider of the motorcycle Babu sustained with several injuries and succumbed to the injuries on 05.02.2019 in the Hospital. Hence, the jurisdictional Police have registered the case in Crime No.7/2019. The investigating Officer has investigated the case and filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.
5. After filing of the charge sheet, the jurisdictional Court took cognizance of the offences against the accused. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, on the perusal of the entire charge sheet it does not disclose the involvement of the petitioner in the case and there are no eye witnesses to the incident to say that the petitioner has committed the offences. Further, name of the petitioner was not shown in the FIR and only during the course of investigation his name is revealed.
7. Learned counsel further contended that in MVC.No.555/2019, PW.1 who being the eyewitness to the incident has categorically stated that at the time of accident, the owner of the vehicle by name Nazeerahamad Mugatosab Hunashikatti was driving the tam-tam vehicle. Hence, the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case and thus, prayed for allowing the petition.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 supports the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State has contended that during the course of investigation, the name of petitioner is revealed. Hence, his name is included in the charge sheet and there is prima facie material against the petitioner so as to attract Sections 279 and 304A of IPC and Section 181(3) of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
10. Learned High Court Government Pleader further contended that, the petitioner has disputed his identity and also disputed the question of fact and hence, the petitioner cannot be disputed question of fact under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.
11. Perused the material available on record.
12. No doubt, the name of petitioner is not shown in the FIR. The alleged incident took place on 31.01.2019 and deceased died on 05.02.2019. Only after registration of the FIR, during the course of investigation, the name of petitioner has been revealed by eye witnesses as he was the driver of tam-tam vehicle. Further, CW.10 has clearly stated that on 31.01.2019, the petitioner-Kashimasab son of Mallikasab Muddi, was driving the tam-tam vehicle bearing registration No.KA.29/A-4836. As per column No.17 of the charge sheet, Investigating Officer
