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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 35086

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA
SRI.DEEPAK KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE – Respondent
CRL.P/3721/2021



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3721/2021

BETWEEN

1.

SRI.DEEPAK KUMAR,

S/O SRI. MAHENDRA KUMAR,

AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

MANAGER,

KEHEMS TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,

R/AT FLAT NO.D-3,

SAMHITHA SPICE WOOD, WEST BLOCK,

G M PALYA, 6TH MAIN,

THIPPASANDRA POST,

BENGALURU - 560 075.

2.

SRI. MUKESH RATHORE,

S/O SRI. MADANLAL RATHORE,

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

OCCUPATION:

FACTORY MANAGER,

KEHEMS TECHONOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,

NO.47, CHANDRABHAGANAGAR,

JUNI INDORE, INDORE,

MADHYA PRADESH - 452 007.

... PETITIONERS

[BY SRI.MURTHY D NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI.MAHENDRA G., ADVOCATE]

2

AND

1.

THE STATE,

BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION,

MADIWALA SUB-DIVISION,

BENGALURU CITY.

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT.

2.

SRI. SHARATH S.,

S/O SHASHI P. S.,

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

ADDRESS AS MENTIONED IN THE

CHARGE-SHEET:

NO.24/1, GANGAMMA TEMPLE STREET,

B. NARAYANAPURA,

M V G LAYOUT,

BENGALURU - 562 135.

NOW RESIDINT AT

SANGUPURATHIL,

KARUNAPURAM

IDUKKI – 685 602,

KERALA.

... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI.SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1;

R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED]

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C. PRAYING TO (1) QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

PENDING IN C.C.NO.6755/2020 ON THE FILE OF XLI ADDITIONAL

CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY, AGAINST

THE PETITIONERS - ACCUSED NUMBERS 4 AND 5, FOR THE

OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS - 304A AND 338 OF THE INDIAN

PENAL CODE, AS PER ANNEXURE – A AND ETC.

3

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

proceedings in C.C.No.6755/2020 pending on the file of XLI

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

2.

Heard the learned Senior counsel, Sri. Murthy D.

Naik and Sri. Shankar H.S., learned HCGP appearing for

respondent No.1.

3.

The

petitioners,

who

are

the

employees

of

M/s. KEHEMS Technologies Pvt. Ltd., enter into a annual

maintenance contract for heat pumps with the Grand Mercure

Hotel, Bengaluru on 31.03.2019. It transpires that on

15.02.2020, Grand Mercure Hotel raises a complaint with regard

to certain defects in heat pumps at their hotel. Accordingly, a

Branch Co-ordinator was deputed to attend to the complaint. On

15.02.2020, an accidental blast takes place while servicing the

heat pump, in which, the respondent No.2 - Service Engineer

4

and another by name Jeswin M.V., both employees of

M/s.

KEHEMS

Technologies

Pvt.

Ltd.

were

injured.

Subsequently, on 21.02.2020, Sri. Jeswin M.V., succumbed to

the injuries. Based upon the said accident, proceedings were

instituted against the petitioners for offences punishable under

Sections 304A and 338 of the IPC. The petitioners are accused

Nos.4 and 5 in the said proceeding. While filing the charge sheet,

the employees of Grand Mercure Hotel have been left and the

petitioners,

who

are

the

employees

of

M/s.

KEHEMS

Technologies Pvt. Ltd., who had annual service contract

agreement with Grand Mercure Hotel are hauled into these

proceedings. It is at that juncture, the petitioners have knocked

the doors of this Court.

4.

Learned Senior counsel, Sri. Murthy D. Naik, would

submit that it was an accident that took place in Grand Mercure

Hotel while servicing the heat pumps by a Service Engineer, a

report was also sought from the hands of one SSS Consultants

with regard to accident. The report opined that it was an

5

accident that has happened due to human error and therefore,

the petitioners cannot be hauled into these proceedings

particularly for offence punishable under 304A of the IPC.

5.

The learned Senior counsel would also place reliance

upon the following judgments rendered by the Ap

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top