Criminal liability under Section 304 Part II IPC requires the presence of specific knowledge that an act is likely to cause death, coupled with the absence of intention; absent such knowledge and an employer-employee nexus, a technology intermediary platform cannot be prosecuted for an accident caused by a driver.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.5945 of 2021 pending on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad, registered for the offences under Sections 304 Part II read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’), 184 read with 188 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’).

02. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri V. Aneesh, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 and Smt.S.Madhavi, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record.

03. Brief facts of the case are that Sri A.Mahipal Reddy, ASI (for short ‘the deceased’) has been working at KPHB PS. On 27.03.2021 he was performing duty of Night Round Officer in the limits of KPHB PS. At about 22:00 hours the deceased along with mobile driver, left the Police Station in Government Bolero Vehicle bearing No TS09PA3377 and while performing night patrolling duty at SBI Bank near Pragathinagar road, at about 00:00 hours the deceased received a call from cyber control regarding an incident took place at Kolari Raghava Reddy Garden, Nizampet, which pertains to Crime No.250 of 2021.

03.1. The deceased along with Home-guard visited the scene of offence on 28.03.2021 at about 00:10 hours and observing the scene, in the meanwhile the accused No.1-taxi driver running Uber Cab bearing No.TS08UD2984 (for short ‘the crime vehicle’), who received a booking online call on 27.03.2021 at about 2300 hours from a passenger and he picked up the said passenger and left RGI Airport towards Hill County, Nizampet.

03.2. On the way, the accused No.1 reached at Kolan Raghava Reddy Garden function hall at about 00:15 hours and dashed the deceased causing severe injuries his head, legs and other parts of his body. After the said incident, the accused left the vehicle at the spot and fled away. On 30.03.2021 at 23:30 hours the deceased was declared as ‘dead’.

03.3. The petitioner-accused No.2 i.e. management of Uber Private TAXI have abetted the offence, by encouraging their drivers to drive at high speed to meet targets. Hence, the petitioner-accused No.2 has abetted the crime by way of instigating their driver to work over time without ample rest for earning more money by announcing perks for driving in Odd hours and extra hours. Thereby, the petitioner-accused No.2 has committed the alleged offences.

04. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged offences. The petitioner-accused No.2 i.e. Uber India, enables customers to avail ride-hailing services by connecting them with drivers. The petitioner-accused No.2 neither employs the driver nor owns the vehicle. The petitioner-accused No.2 has no role in the present criminal case. The petitioner-accused No.2 was merely a platform to connect the customers. There is no employee and employer relationship between the accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.2. The contents of the FIR or charge sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients required for constituting the offences under Sections 304 Part II read with 109 of IPC, 184 read with 188 of the Act.

05. With the above submissions, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.2 while praying for the quashment of criminal proceedings relied upon a decision in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and another v. State of Maharasthtra, ((2025) 3 S.C.R. 502: 2025 INSC 338), wherein the Honourable Supreme Court of India at Paragraph Nos.12.4, 13, 14, 15 and 16 held that:

“12.4. Coming back to Section 304 Part II IPC, we find that the said section would be attracted if anyone commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to ca