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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRL.P NO 102174 OF 2018

BETWEEN

SRI. RAMESH S/O YALLAPPA DEVASHETTI

AGED ABOUT: 54 YEARS,OCC: HEAD POST MASTER,

R/AT: HEAD POST OFFICE,DHARWAD.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.M B KANAVI, ADV.,)

AND

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REP BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION,

DHARWAD,REP. BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

2 . SRI.MOHAMMAD ARSHAD

S/O ABDULKARIM NADAF,

AGED ABOUT: 26 YEARS,

OCC: BHARAT GAS DELIVERY BOY,

R/AT: MRUTYUNJAY NAGAR,

NADAF GALLI, DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FPR R1;

SRI.SHIVARAJ S BALLOLLI, ADV., FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE

SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD AGAINST THE PETITIONER

BEFORE THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. DHARWAD IN CRIME

NO.323/2016 U/SEC.304-AOF IPC AND TAKING COGNIZANCE BY THE

TRIAL COURT IN CC 507/2018, BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT

CRIMINAL PETITION.

2

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

1. The Petitioner in this petition calls in question the

proceedings in cc. No. 507/2018 registered for the offence

punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC.

2. Heard

Sri.M.B.Kanavi,

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioner and Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for the

respondent-State.

3. Facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:

In furtherance of the scheme “Swachha Bharat Abhiyan”

on 21/12/2016 the Dharawad head post office also under

took the process of clearing its premises which was being

done at regular intervals. One A.K.Nadaf, G.D.S.Packer

working at the Dharwad head post office was in the process

of cleaning 1st floor of the post office while doing so falls

down and sustains grievous injuries. He was immediately

taken to the hospital but succumbed to the injuries.

3

4. Based upon this incident, the complainant-father of

the deceased registers a complaint before the jurisdictional

police pursuant to which an FIR is registered in Crime

No.323/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 304-

A of the IPC, alleging that R.Y.Devashetti, post master,

Dharwad was entrusting other work than what was to be

rendered by the deceased and on that ground holds the post

master responsible for the death of his son.

5. Pursuant to the investigation conducted, the police

also file a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. It is these

proceedings that are called in question the subject petition.

This Court by its order dated 1/3/2021 directed the

respondent to produce evidence of compensation provided to

the family of the deceased apart from providing an

appointment on compassionate grounds. It is not in dispute

that compensation is given and compassionate appointment

is granted to the dependents of the deceased.

4

6. Learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioner

Sri.M.B.Kanavi submits that the petitioner who is the head

post master of Head Post office, Dharwad cannot be hauled

for offences punishable under Section 304-A as there is no

negligent act on the part of the petitioner. The deceased was

an employee who was undertaking the routine work and

unfortunately falls down and succumbed to the injuries, no

rash or negligent act can even be attributed to the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the

2nd respondent-Sri.Shivarja S Ballolli would vehemently

refute the submissions made and would contend that the job

of the petitioner was G.D.S.Packer and could not have been

entrusted with other duties and therefore the petitioner is

responsible for his death. The allegation of offence punishable

under Section 304-A of the IPC is correctly charged against

the petitioner.

5

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

9. The aforenarrated facts not being in dispute are not

reiterated. What requires to be considered is whether the trial

can be permitted to be continued against the petitioner for

the offence punishable under 304-A in the teeth of the

aforenarrated facts.

10.

Section 304-A reads as follows:

304A.

Causing

death

by

negligence.—Whoever

causes

the

death of any person by doing any

rash or negligent act not amounting

to

culpable

homicide,

shall

be

punished

with

imprisonment

of

either description for a term which

may extend to two years, or with

fine, or with both.

6

11.

Section 304-A reads into two parts first part

relates to causing death of any person by any rash act of the

accused and the second part comes into operation when

death is caused due to a negligent act. Therefore offence

under Section 304-A of IPC is committed either by a rash act

or negligent act. It is on the touchstone of the aforesaid

principles, the case at hand will have to be noticed.

12.

Petitioner is an employee of the head post

office. In terms of “Swachha Bharath Abhiyan ” movement all

the staff working in the head post office were on rotation

undertaking the work of cleaning

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