Nagaraj S/O. Choori Hanmantappa vs State Of Karnataka & Ors.

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash FIR and complaint filed in Halageri Police Station Crime No.168/2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short).

The respondent No.2-Hanumantappa has filed first information report on 14.09.2022 and based on that first information, Crime No.168/2022 of Halageri P.S. has been registered against Malatesh Nagaraj Churi(son of the petitioner) for offences under Section 279, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

In the said first information, it is stated that first informant and Malatesh were traveling on motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-17/K-0219 and Malatesh was riding the said motorcycle and first informant Hanumantappa was a pillion rider. The said Malatesh drove the said motorcycle in high speed and in a negligent manner and dashed to the road side pool katta and as a result, first informant sustained injuries and Malatesh had sustained severe injuries and was taken to the hospital and Doctor who examined him informed that he is dead.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that first informant-Hanumantappa was riding the motorcycle and Malatesh- deceased(son of the petitioner) was pillion rider and accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2- Hanumantappa. He further submits that one Maruti was eye witness to the incident and he had taken the injured person to the hospital.

He further submits that the petitioner filed his representation dated 12.11.2022 enclosing certain documents and has made a request to PSI Halageri P.S. informing that it was the respondent No.2- Hanumantappa was riding the bike and deceased-Malatesh was a pillion rider. He further submits that the said representation of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration by the investigating officer. He further submits that without considering his representation, chargesheet has been filed against deceased-Malatesh for offences under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.

Learned AGA would contend that the Police after receipt of representation given by the petitioner, have given their endorsement dated 16.12.2022, wherein, it is stated that they will conduct investigation impartially and filed report based on the evidence. He further submits that the investigating officer has now filed chargesheet based on the investigating material against Malatesh(deceased) for offences under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC. In the investigation, the investigating officer has recorded the statement of respondent No.2-Hanumantappa and eye witness Maruti. He further submits that eye witness-Maruti in his statement has stated that deceased-Malatesh was riding the vehicle and respondent No.2- Hanumantappa was a pillion rider at the time of incident. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.

Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the materials placed on record.

Respondent No.2 has filed first information report dated 14.09.2022, while he was in Government hospital, Ranebennur. In the said first information, respondent No.2 has stated that he was a pillion rider and Malatesh(deceased) was riding the motorcycle and due to his rash and negligent driving, accident occurred and both sustained injuries. The petitioner has sent his representation dated 12.11.2022 along with documents to the investigating officer. The investigating officer has issued endorsement to the petitioner stating that investigation will be done impartially and report will be filed based on the evidence. Considering the said aspect, it cannot be said at this stage, that the investigating officer has not taken into consideration the representation and filed the chargesheet.

Investigation officer has filed chargesheet against Malatesh(deceased) for offence under Section 279, 304-A of IPC. The chargesheet is based on the first information filed by respondent No.2- Hanumantappa and statement of eye witness Maruti. Maruti in his statement before the investigating officer has stated that Malatesh(deceased) was riding the motorcycle and respondent No.2- Hanumantappa was a pillion rider at the time of accident. The said chargesheet has been filed based on the materials and evidence collected at the time of investigation. Considering the chargesheet, it cannot be said that first information filed by respondent No.2-Hanumantappa is incorrect. The petitioner has not filed any affidavit of Maruti-eye witness in order to establish his contention that respondent No.2- Hanumantappa was riding the motorcycle and Malatesh was pillion rider. Considering all these aspects, there are no grounds for quashing FIR and complaint as sought for.

In the result, the petition is dismissed.

The petitioner is at liberty to file the private complaint if he is so advised.