w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


S.P. Vijay, Managing Director, Torento Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bengalu v/s State of Karnataka, Rep. by Madiwala Police Station, Bengaluru & Another

    Criminal Petition No. 1441 of 2017
    Decided On, 08 October 2020
    At, High Court of Karnataka
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
    For the Petitioner: H. Ramachandra, Advocate. For the Respondent: R1, K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP.


Judgment Text
(Prayer: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order in C.C.No11064/2013 by taking cognizance by registering the criminal case on 22.07.2013 by the III ACMM, Bangalore.)

1. Sri.H.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for Respondent No.1 are present before the Court physically and heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the records.

2. Though the case is posted for admission, with the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

3. This petition is filed for quashing the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.11064/2013 arose in Cr.No.1030/2012 registered by the Madiwala police station for the offence punishable under Section 338 read with Section 34 of IPC.

4. It is stated in the complaint filed by the complainant that his brother-in-law namely Sri. Manju was working as a house keeping under S.R.S. Security since 15.10.2012. One Ram Murthy who is the proprietor of the S.R.S. security assigned the said Manju and others to do some repair work in the parking place situated at Injam Tech Park as there was stagnation of rain water on the first floor. When the petitioner was clearing the rain water and adjusting the asbestos sheets, the same was broken, as a result, said Manju fell down from the first floor and suffered fracture on his back bone. Immediately, he was shifted to Green View Hospital at Adugodi, later he was taken to St.Jones hospital for further treatment where he was an inpatient till 27.10.2012. Despite providing better treatment to the injured Manju, his condition was not improved and he is still suffering from the said fractures. Hence, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner. Subsequent to filing of a complaint, the investigating officer investigated the matter thoroughly and laid charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument contended that the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint is not specific and the accident caused due to the negligence of one Ram Murthy who is the proprietor of S.R.S. security. Further, there is no serious and specific allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint except stating that the petitioner was present at the time of the incident. As such, there is no specific overtact attributed against the petitioner. Learned counsel further contended that the injured along with other employees are not the employees under the petitioner. The contract was given to SRS Security by the Injam Techpark and on the instruction of the proprietor of SRS security, the injured Manju was doing repair work in the parking place situated at Injam Tech Park. As such, the proprietor of SRS Security is the responsible for the aforesaid incident and he would have taken precautionary measures before assigning the said work to the injured Manju. But he did not do so. As such, the petitioner is no way concern to the aforesaid incident occurred on 15.10.2012. Though the petitioner is not responsible for the aforesaid incident, he got admitted the injured Manju to the hospital and paid the entire medical charges. Moreover, there is no specific allegation made against the petitioner in the charge sheet.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relies upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.P.B.Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, (2014) AIR SC 795 relating to Sections, 338 of IPC and Sections 32, 33, 36, 88, of Medical Council Act wherein held that causing grievous hurt by rash and negligent act-expression 'act' occurring in Section 338 of IPC include acts of omission as well. Medical Council Act (102 of 1956), Section 20A-Doctor-patient relationshipconcept of, forms foundation of legal obligation between doctor and patient and it is elaborately narrated at para- 39 and paras-32 to 35. The reliance is applicable to the present case on hand. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to allow the petition quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.11064/2013 for the offences stated supra.

7. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the State has taken me through the averments made in the complaint alleging that when the injured was clearing rain water after stagnated on the first floor and adjusting the asbestos sheets covered to the parking place in the Injam Techpark, the same was broken, as a result, the said Manju fell down and sustained fractures on his back bone. At the time of incident, the petitioner was present at the spot and without taking any safety measures, he assigned the work to the said Manju. Hence, he is also responsible for the said accident. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the petitioner. After thorough investigation, the investigating officer has laid the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 338 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned HCGP further contend that whether there was any negligence either on the part of the injured or accused persons for the accident is to be proved during full-fledged trial. Therefore, facing the trial by the petitioner is very much required. On all these grounds, the learned HCGP is seeking for dismissal of the petition.

8. Having gone through the argument addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counter made by the learned HCGP as well as materials on record, it is relevant to state here that, brother-in-law of the complainant namely Manju was working as a house keeping under S.R.S. Security since 15.10.2012. One Ram Murthy who is the proprietor of the SRS security has assigned the said Manju and others to do some repair work in the parking place situated at Injam Tech Park as there was stagnation of rain water on the first floor. While clearing the same and adjusting the asbestos sheets, the same was broken, as a result, said Manju fell down from the first floor and suffered fractures on his back bone. Immediately, he was shifted to Green View Hospital at Adugodi, later, he was taken to St.Jones hospital for further treatment where he was an inpatient till 27.10.2012. Despite providing better treatment to the injured Manju, he could not recover completely and he is still suffering from the said fractures. Hence, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner and others. After thorough investigation, the investigating officer laid the charge sheet against the petitioner and others for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the investigating officer has recorded the statement of C.W.2 and C.W.3 and they have stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused as they have assigned C.W.2 to do repair work without taking any safety measures. Therefore, whether there is any negligence either on the part of the accused or injured for the said accident requires to be proved during the course of the full-fledged trial. Therefore, the accused facing the tr

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ail for the aforesaid offences is very much required to prove the negligence. If the accused is supposed to be absolving from the charges leveled against him, certainly, there shall be a miscarriage of justice. Inherent power has to be exercised sparingly, cautiously, judicially and judiciously but in the instant petition, there are prima-facie material to proceed with the case against the accused. Hence, the petition is liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed but directing the trial court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law since, case is of the year 2012. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order, the trial court shall not influence in the mind, but dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law.
O R