Anand Kalidasan vs State Of Karnataka

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.

The police have registered a case in Crime No.28/2019 for the offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC on the report lodged by respondent No.2 herein vide report dated 30.06.2019, with reference to the accident that took place on 27.06.2019.

The allegations in the charge-sheet shows that the accused-petitioner while driving the car bearing No.KA-51-MA-1971 dashed the motorcycle which was ridden by the husband of respondent No.2, from backside. Because of that, he fell down and sustained some internal injuries to his chest, etc., and thereafter he had been to hospital. Since no visible injuries were available, he went back and thereafter 3 days later, his wife lodged a report to the police. Learned counsel strenuously contended that the victim has not lodged any complaint immediately. Subsequently, the wife of the victim i.e., respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint as an afterthought. It is further contended that, there was no accident as such, that took place on that day and no offence has been committed by the petitioner herein.

After investigating the matter, considering the said statements made by the victim as well as his wife, it is stated and reiterated that the accident had taken place and subsequently the accused has not taken care of the victim, though he has admitted the victim to the hospital at the initial stage. Therefore they have lodged the complaint after 3 days. Whether such an act of the accused only made the complainant to lodge the said complaint or really the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused in order to cause danger to human life, is the factual aspect that has to be decided by the trial Court on full-fledged evidence.

It is also worth to mention here that after registration of the criminal case, petitioner-accused has appeared before the court and enlarged on bail. Subsequently, the plea of the accused was recorded and he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried before the court. So, he has accepted to proceed with the trial and thereafter summons were issued to PWs.1 & 2 and they were examined in chief and the matter is now set down for cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2. What PWs.1 and 2 have stated before the court is the substantive evidence that requires to be appreciated. Once the evidence is recorded the, statements of the witnesses before police virtually merges with the evidence which they have adduced before the court.

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is not a fit case where at this stage the court can quash the proceedings. Hence the petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, all the grounds which are urged before this court are kept open to be urged before the trial Court at the time of trial and submitting the arguments.