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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.