The High Court · 2025

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusirll the Memorandum of Grounds of Crirninal Petition and upon hearing the argunt::nts of Sri V. Aneesh, Advocate for tre Petitioner and the Assistant Public F)',- secutor (TG/AP) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 The Court made the following Order:- THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE JUWADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.3321 OF 20 22 ORDER 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 lV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, registered for the offences under Sections 304 Part ll read with 109 of the lndian Penal Code (for short 'lPC'), 184 read with 188 of the lVlotor 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, Iearned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent No.1. No representation on behalf of the unofficial respondent No.2. Perused the record 2

03. Brief facts of the case are that liri A.Mahipal Reddy, ASI (for short 'the deceased') has beer working at KPHB PS. On 27.03.2021 he was performing r.irrty of Night Round Officer in the limits of KPHB PS At ;,rbout 22:00 hours the deceased along with mobile driver, le,l1 the Police Station in Government Bolero Vehicle lrr:aring No TS09PA3377 and while performing night patrc{ling duty at SBI Bank near- Pragathinagar road, at abor-rt Q(j ('ll) fr6r-rrs the deceased received a call from cyber control r r: garding an incident took place at Kolari Raghava Rerlcly Garden, Nizampet, which pertains to Crime No.250 of 2O'.;;.1 01i.1 The deceased along with Home-gurarrl visited the scene of offence on 28.03.2021 at about 00 1t.) hours and observing the scene, in the meanwhile the acc,.r;ed No.1-taxi driver running Uber Cab bearing No.TSOBUD2ltt4 (for short 'the crime vehicle'), who received a booking : rline call on

27.03.2021 at about 2300 hours from a passe nger and he picked up the said passenger and left RGI Airoort towards Hill County, Nizampet 3

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 lndia, enables customers to avail ride-hailing services by connecting them with drivers. The petitioner-accused No.2 4 neither employs the driver nor owns the ve,t- icle. The petitioner-accused No.2 has no role in the prer;r:nt criminal CASE The petitioner-accused No.2 was merelv a platform to connect the customers. There is no employee a rd ernployer relationship between the accused No.1 and the petitioner- accused No.2. The contents of the FIR or chzr-c;e sheet do not disclose the essential ingredients rr:quired for rnnqtilr rinl lha nffannoc r rndor Qantinnc ?O.4 D:,' l ll r-ad rriith 109 of IPC 184 read with 1BB of the Act 0t;. With the above submissions, learned Senior Counse appearing for the petitioner-accuseri No 2 while praying for the quashment of criminal procr:e:clings relied upon a decision in Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther and another v. State of Maharasthtra', wherein the Honourzrltle Supreme Court ol lndia at Paragraph Nos.'12.4, 13,14,'1 5 irnd 16 held that: "12.4- Coming back to Section 304 Pad li lPC, we find that the said section woutd be attre cted if anyone commits culpable homicicle not amounting to murder if the act is done w,ilr the '1zozs1 : s.c R. so2 2025 tNSc 338 5 knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Therefore, the requirement of Section 304 Part ll IPC is that the doer must have the knowledge that the act peiormed is likely to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death. Thus, the basic ingredient of Section 304 Part ll IPC is presence of knowledge and absence of intention. The doer must have the knowledge that the act performed by him would likely cause death etc but there should not be any intention to cause death.

13. This being the legal framework, let us now deal with the charge against the appellants taking the same as correct. According to the prosecution and accepted by the Trial Court and the High Court, the two accused persons had not taken proper care and caution by providing safety shoes, safety belt etc to the two employees though they were asked to perform the job of working on the sign board as part of decorating the front side of the shop which was approximately at a height of 12 feet from the ground level. The accused persons had provided only an iron ladder to the two 6 entployees but while working they were slruck by electricity as a result of which they sulfered electrocution and fell down. They atlfetred multistle injuries which led to their t',=ath. Ther<:fore, both the accused persons v/ere declared to be responsible for the unn,ttural death of the two deceased employees. 14. Even if we take the allegation agairt:;t the appellants as correct, we are afraid no ,:trima facie case can be said to have been macet out against the appellants for committing an ot'l'ence under Section 304 Part ll lPC. From the .::;ord of the case, it is evident that there was no intention on the parl of the two appellants to cause the death or cause such bodily inlury as wits likely to cause the death of the twct deceased employees. lt cannot also b,= said that the appellants had knowledge th,tt by asking the two deceased employees to work on the sign board as parl of the work of dec,>ratiort ol tlte frontage of the shop, they htr;.l the knowledge that such an act was likely to r-:ituse the death of the two deceased employee's. As such. no prima facie case of culpable hont,cide can be said to have been made out against the appellants. lf that be so, the subsequent requirement of having knowledge that the act 7 was likely to cause the death but not having any intention to cause death would become irrelevant though we may hasten to add that nothing is discernible from the record of the case that the appellants had the knowledge that by asking the fuvo employees to work on the sign board would likely cause their death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause their death. 15. Therefore, the basic ingredients for commission of offence under Section 304 Part ll IPC are absent in the present case.

16. Section 227 CrPC deals with discharge. What Section 227 CrPC contemplates is that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the judge considers that there is no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for doing so. At the stage of consideration of discharge, the,court is not required to undertake a threadbare analysis of the materials gathered by the prosecution. All that is required to be seen at this stage is that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. ln 8 other words, the materials should be sutfi';ienl to enable the courl to initiate a criminal trial aglainst the accused. lt may be so that .:-t; the end of the trial, the accused may ::titt be acquitted. At the stage of discharge, cor.'tl is only required to consider as to whether lhere are sttfficient materials which can justify lz,tnch of a criminal trial against the accused. By its vr>ry nature, a discharge is at a higher peclestal than an acquittal. Acquittal is at the end of the trial process, ntay be for a technicality ::r on benefit of doubt or the prosecution coulc,t not prove the charge against the accused; but when an accused is discharged, it means that there are no materials to justify launch of a ctirninal tr;al against the accused. Once lt,.: ls discharged, he is no longer an accused.'' 06 Further, he relied upon a decision :f the High Court of Delhi in Baldev Raj Kapur v. State2 rtherein it was held at Paragraph Nos.17 and 1B that: "17. ln Vijay ltlafatlal Solanki and Anr. v. The Sfafe of Gujarat - AIANU/GJ/0775/2005 wh=rein a building in Ahmedabad city was seriously damaged and major poftion of the said tt,-trlding ' MANU/Dt]/01 11/2009 I collapsed on 26.1.2001 and lhe prosecution had chargesheeted the petitioners as persons responsible for offences under Seclion 304 Part // besrdes other sections, for the collapse of the building on the plea that super structure had collapsed because of irresponsible pattern of construction and ceiain omissions and commlssions in constructing the building which ultimately collapsed resulting into the /oss of lives and propefties of the individuals who were occupying the flats in the said aparlment, it was observed: "9. Having considered the totality emerging from record and in view of the discussion made above, the Court is of the view that, prima facie, the accused persons could not have been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Parl : ll of the IPC along with other secllons which the accused is charged, as there is no element of knowledge or intention on the part of the petitioner. As there is a/so no element of any criminal conspiracy, the petitioners could not have been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of lPC. This section has a direct nexus with an intention and mitigation of mind. When a major change is found to be related to the element of 10 negliqence, may be by overt act or by omlr.-r;lon, there cannot be even assumption of consptracy Lack of reasons, to earn some more profh or to get illegal gratification may result tit to negliqence and also criminal negligence. The same rs an independent offence punishable under lPC. The couri is prima facie sitti.;fied that the element of intention to cont'r it a criminal wrong is lacking and, therefot.t>. the accused could not have been chargesht:eted for tlre said offence. So, Ihe petitioners a,' 'easl should have been discharged from the otf.-.nce punishable under section 304 & 120 -B ttr the IPC and ld. Addl. Sessions Judge ought tct \ave said that the accused should be asked tr face charge of the offence punishable under Soction 304-4 of IPC along with other offences che'7gst referred to above." 18. Reading of Section 304 Parl ll makes it cleat that an accused can be charged unctr.r the said provision for an offence of ct,lpable homicide not amounting to murder only when being so charged, it is alleged that the accused has done the act with the knowledge th,:-tt it is likely to cause death or to cause such Lodily injury as is likely fo cause death; under such circumstances the charged offences woull fall 11 under Section 304 Part ll. But, before any charge is framed under Section 304 Part ll, the material on record must at least prima facie show that the accused is guilty of homicide and the act committed must amount to culpable homicide. Where the material relied upon for framing such a charge against the accused concerned falls shorl of even prima facie indicating that the accused appeared to be guilty of an offence of culpable homicide under Section 304 Part ll IPC not amounting to murder, it is in the interest of justice that provisions of Section 304 Parl ll IPC are eliminated."

07. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that there are triable issues and factual aspects to be examined by the learned trial Court and it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner at this juncture and the matter has to be decided after conducting trial by the learned trial Court and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Petition.

08. Having regard to the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the record, it is apparent on the 1? face of the record that the petitioner-accused l'.1c 2 operates solely as a technolcgy intermediary, connectirr,.; riders with drivers via mobile application 'Uber'. lt is an z:rlmitted fact that the accused No 1 was not employed with ih r: petitioner- accused No.2. So also, the petitioner-accusei l'l r.2 was not the owner of the crime vehicle. The crime vehir:lr- belongs to one fi/ohammed Akbar. Hence, the employer ar1 employee relationship cannot be attr"ibuted to the accuscd l'l o 1 and thc petitioner-accused No.2. Therefore, there is no :lirect nexus between the accused No.1-driver and the petrtiorrer-accused No.2 09 Section 304 Part ll of IPC would ltr., attracted if anyone commits culpable homicide not amountin(; to murder, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is li1,r,l, ,o .ur"" death but without any intention to cause deatl cr to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death Iherefore, the requirement of Section 304 Part ll IPC is that tr,-. petitioner- accused No.2 must have the knowledge '.t'at the act performed is likely to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death but without 6n',, in{ention to 13 cause death. Thus, the basic ingredient of Section 304 Part ll IPC is presence of knowledge and absence of intention The accused must have the knowledge that the act performed by him would likely to cause death etc but there should not be any intention to cause death

10. This being the settled principle of law, the petitioner-accused No.2 being a platform to connect the customers and cab drivers, there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the petitioner-accused No.2 to cause the death or cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause the death of the deceased. Generally, when an online booking ride arrives on the mobile application, it is for the driver to opt whether to accept the said ride or not. However, it is for the driver to follow the rules and regulations of the traffic. Therefore, the petitioner-accused No.2 is no way connected to the death of the deceased. The essential ingredients required for constituting the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioner-accused No.2

11. ln view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case including the settled principle of law laid down by I ( 14 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia, this Court s of the firm opinion that the allegations levelled against ti- e petitioner- accused No.2 do not attract the alleged offences. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceeding:, ilgainst the petitionerr-accused No.2 amounts to abuse of I r,tcess of law and the same are liable to be quashed 1?.. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is :illowed and the criminal proceedings against the oetitioner-a r;cused No.2 in C.C No 5945 of 2021 pending on the file o1 learned lV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgit'i District at Kukatpally, are hereby quashed As a sequel, pending miscellaneous ;'1;plications, if SD/- MOHD. ISMA]L DEPUTY REGISTRAR any, shall stand closed \ Note: This or<lcr is amended as per coull ordcr dated 19-09 -2025 rnade in l.A_No.I ot' 2025. Thc Courl name mentioned in Ihe ordcr dated 30-04-202,5 in Crl.l,etition No.l32l of2022 the rvords,. II Additional JLrnior Crvil Judge_ curn-X. Additional Mctropolitan Magistratc, Kukatpa y, Cyberabad is modify rvith ,. tV Additional Junior Civrl Judgc_ cum-XV Additional Judiciat Magistratc of First Class. Medchal-Malkajgiri Oistrict, at Kukatpally', wherevcr it is nccessary. This Order substifutes thc carlier order which u,as dispatched ott 09 -07 -2025. Issue antcnded order. accortlingly. ,TRUE coPY// SDi- MOHD.ISMAIL REGISTRAR r 1-EPUTY , r sec-rroliorFrcen =- The. lv Additional Junior civil Judge-cum- xv Addiribl Judicial lvlagistrate of First Class, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally To, 2 3

4. 5. VC/gh \ The Station House Officer, KPHB P.S., lVledchal District Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri V. Aneesh, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 19-09-2025 t \. ,[ (Fc'irc i ,,: 11 2 \Ir,, \ lo'2. AMENDED ORDER CRLP.No.3321 ot 2022 ALLOWING THE CRLP