2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20655
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M/S.SHREE VINAYAK INFRATECH PVT LTD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 6315 / 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6315 OF 2025 BETWEEN:
M/S.SHREE VINAYAK INFRATECH PVT. LTD.
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SURAJ CHINDAILA OFFICE AT: GROUND FLOOR 2946/E, DIVYA DARSHANA, OPP MARUTHI MANDIR, SERVICE ROAD VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NIKHIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GAURAV C PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RTO JNANABHARATHI, Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, Location: H IGH BENGALURU-560001.
COURT OF KARNATAKA
2. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, JNANABHARATHI, VISHWESHWARAIAH LAYOUT, RAILWAY MEN'S EMPLOYEES LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, SMV, RAILWAY LAYOUT, JNANA GANGA NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C.NO.1741/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT-VI, BENGALURU AND QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET (ANNEXURE-A) AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 21.05.2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3, 4 AND 12 OF THE KARNATAKA MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION ACT, 1957 IN C.C.NO.1741/2024 AND QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED JMFC, (TRAFFIC COURT-VI), BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
a) Call for records in C.C.No.1741/2024 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-VI, Bengaluru;
b) Quash the Entire Charge sheet (Annexure - A) and set aside the order taking Cognizance dated 21.05.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 12 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 in C.C.No.1741/2024 and quash all proceedings arising therefrom initiated against the petitioner and pending on the file of the learned JMFC (Traffic Court-VI), Bengaluru (Annexure - B);
c) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter, in the interest of justice.
2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the petitioner was earlier the owner of the subject vehicle being a Tipper vehicle bearing registration No.KA-35-8061. Due to long lapse of time, the petitioner was not in a position to use the vehicle any further and since the same was not roadworthy, the petitioner addressed a letter dated 26.12.2019 to the respondent-RTO intimating him that the vehicle was not in a good condition and was not in a state to be used and surrendered all the documents of the vehicle and requested for issuance of Non-use Certificate. In pursuance of the same, the respondent - RTO requested the RTO, Chikkodi to conduct inspection periodically, which culminated in a report dated 08.07.2020, wherein it was found that the subject vehicle was found in a non-use condition. In view of the vehicle being in a non-use condition, the petitioner proceeded to scrap the vehicle by selling the same to scrap dealer vide sale deed dated
08.02.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the vehicle being in a non-use condition and thereafter being scraped by selling the same to scrap dealer as long back as on 08.02.2021, the respondents have instituted the impugned proceedings without appreciating that the petitioner was not in a custody or possession of the vehicle, which has already been sold by way of scrap to scrap dealer. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of the alleged offences punishable under S