IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6628 OF 2021 BETWEEN:

MANISH B GAJRIYA S/O LATE BHARATH R GAJRIA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.294, SHANTHINIKETHAN APARTMENT, 39^TH CROSS, 8^TH STAGE, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 070.

…PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRATHIKSHA JAIN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA CIRCLE REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, Digitally signed BANGALORE - 560 001.

by PRASHANTH N V Location: H igh 2. SRI. KESHAVAN Court of Karnataka S/O THAMBURASU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, 44E, SCHOOL ROAD, ENNALLUR, KATTUR, NAGAPATTINAM, PAKKAMATTUR, TAMIL NADU - 609 701. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE BY THE COURT BELOW AND ALSO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.2317/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 338 OF IPC.

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner being accused No.3 in CC No.2317/2020, on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, registered for the offences punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

2. Heard Smt. Prathiksha Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rangaswamy R, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Sri. Suresh M Latur, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

4. Respondent No.2 has filed the first information with Nelamangala Rural Police Station against CNR constructions Nelamangala, Bengaluru, alleging that on 24.04.2019, at 4.00 pm., his son Rajkumar, who was working under CNR constructions and was doing fabrication work fell down from the height, while fixing the sheet on the roof and sustained injuries to his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Victoria hospital and other private hospitals, where he has taken treatment as inpatient. Therefore, it is stated that CNR constructions, which engaged the services of the injured has committed the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC.

5. Investigation was undertaken and charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offence against accused Nos.1 to 5. Petitioner being accused No.3 is before this Court is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner-accused No.3 is the owner of the premises, where the work was undertaken by CNR constructions. Even as per the charge sheet, the work was entrusted to accused No.1 as the contractor, he in turn engaged accused No.4 as Sub-Contractor, accused No.4 engaged accused No.2 as the Project Manager and accused No.5 as the Roofing Contractor.

7. As per column No.17 of the charge sheet, even though injured was engaged in roofing work to fix the Iron anglers, he was not provided with safety belt, shoe and helmet or net. As a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries. There is no specific allegation against this petitioner in the charge sheet. When, admittedly, he is the owner of the premises in question, there cannot be any vicarious liability that could be fixed on the petitioner being the owner for the criminal offence alleged. When admittedly, the work was entrusted to the Contractor and Sub-Contractor, who engaged the servi