Criminal Petition No. 1885 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6877 CRL.P No. 1885 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1885 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NIKHIL BARUA S/O PRANAB BARUA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23, KRISHVI ARC HIVE, FLAT NO.301, 3RD FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 6TH CROSS, DEFENCE COLONY, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU 560038 CHARGESHEET ADD: R/A D-2, NO.258, 10TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU 560038 2. SRI GOPINATH BELGANTTY
Legal Reasoning
In our considered opinion, the well reasoned and well considered judgment of the High Court does not call for interference, more so, when the High Court has made it clear that the order would not come in the way of the respondent No.2 in instituting any civil proceedings against the petitioner in respect of any grievance, if permissible in law, which would then be considered and decided in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court affirms the findings of the High Court qua Section 285 of the IPC holding that the accused must have done something with fire or any combustible matter in a rash or negligent manner to endanger human life. The petitioner is not alleged to have done any such act or the driver of the lorry of the petitioner. The allegation is that, diesel was being transported in the diesel tanker for sale without invoice. This can hardly become an ingredient of the offence punishable under Section 285 of the IPC. Therefore, this becomes a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to obliterate the crime at the stage of FIR itself, in tune with the postulates laid down by the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJANLAL2…" 10. On the aforesaid twin counts of the complaint being preferred beyond the period of limitation, and the fact that the alleged act does not meet the ingredients of Section 285 of the I.P.C., if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become contrary to law and result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, this this Court's becomes a fit case jurisdiction under Section 482 of to obliterate the crime. for exercise of the Cr.P.C., 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
Arguments
S/O V. SURESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.21/3, 1ST MAIN, 7TH CROSS, SRIKANTESHWARANAGAR, VTC: NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560096 Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka AS PER CHARGESHEET NAME: GOPINATH, S/O RANGAIAH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO.25/3, SRIKANTESHWARANAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA N., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6877 CRL.P No. 1885 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, 0 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560009 2. MR. G. KRISHANASWAMY, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, FIRE STATION SOUTH FIRE STATION, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 025 (BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2025) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 18.10.2019 IN C.C.NO.57216/2019 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.75/2019 PASSED BY X ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 285 OF IPC, 1860 AND SECTION 25 OF KARNATAKA FIRE FORCE ACT, 1964 AS FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY QUASH IN C.C.NO.57216/2019 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.75/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 285 OF IPC AND SECTION 25 OF KARNATAKA FIRE FORCE ACT, 1964 AS FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU. PROCEEDINGS CRIMINAL ENTIRE THE THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6877 CRL.P No. 1885 of 2025 ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.57216/2019 arising out of FIR in Crime No.75/2019 registered by the Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 285 and 336 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioners – Nikhil Barua and Gopinath Belgantty were arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3 along with another, who was arraigned as accused Nos.1 in the charge sheet in C.C.No.57216/2019 pursuant to FIR in Crime No.75/2019. The offences alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under Sections 285 and 336 of IPC. 4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the order of this Court dated 23.01.2025 passed in Crl.P.No.13102/2024 as against accused No.1 in order to point out that in view of the quashment of criminal proceedings - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6877 CRL.P No. 1885 of 2025 of the aforesaid accused, the petitioners who are accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C.No.57216/2019 would be entitled to seek parity. 5. This Court in the case of Gajaraju Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr – Crl.P.No.13102/2024 dated 23.01.2025, quashed the criminal proceedings qua accused No.1 (in C.C.No.57216/2019) and held as under: “In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: A. Set aside the order taking cognizance dated of X Additional Chief 18.10.2019 Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 285 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 25 of Karnataka Fire Force Act, 1964 produced as Annexure-A, consequently, quash the entire in C.C.No.57216/2019 arising out of Crime No.75/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 285 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 25 of Karnataka Fire Force Act, 1964 on the file X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. proceedings criminal B. Pass any such other orders, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit including the costs of this petition, in the interests of justice and equity.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. The issue in controversy involved in the present petition regarding taking cognizance for alleged offences - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6877 CRL.P No. 1885 of 2025 against the petitioner under Section 285 of IPC and Section 25 of Karnataka Fire Force Act, 1964, is directly and squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of B.S.Suresh and Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr., passed in Crl.P.No.12339/2023 dated 29.08.2024, wherein it is held as under: “xxx 9. The other submission of the learned Senior counsel is with regard to the facts not meeting the ingredients of Section 285 of the IPC. The said issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter, as this Court in Crl.P.No.4507/2023, while considering Section 285 of the IPC has held as follows: ""11. The other provision is Section 285 of the IPC. Section 285 of the IPC (supra) mandates rash or negligent act by any person so as to endanger human life, while dealing with fire or combustible matter knowingly or unknowingly. The Apex Court in the case of GURUKANWARPAL KIRPAL SINGH v. SURYA PRAKASAM1, has held as follows: “The High Court further held that the essential requirement of Section 285 of IPC was that the accused must have fire or any done something with combustible matter rash and negligent manner to endanger human life. in a The FIR in the present case does not show anything done by the accused with fire or any combustible matter. The act of recycling plastic waste material or supply of plastic waste material for recycling by the petitioner No.2 could not be said to be an act done with fire or any combustible matter. The act of the respondents of supplying material for testing and the recycling plant could not be said to be a negligent or rash act done to endanger 1 SLP (Crl.) No.5485 of 2021 decided on 12-05-2022 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6877 CRL.P No. 1885 of 2025 Thus, human ingredients of the offence were absent. essential life. the
Decision
ORDER 2 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6877 CRL.P No. 1885 of 2025 i) ii) The criminal petition is allowed; and The in proceedings C.C.No.56902/2019, pending on the the X Additional Chief file of Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, qua the petitioners, stand quashed.” 4. In view of the undisputed fact that the aforesaid judgment is directly and squarely applicable to the facts in hand, proceedings qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 5. In the result, I pass the following: i) ii) ORDER The petition is hereby allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.57216/2019 arising out of Crime No.75/2019 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 285 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 25 of Karnataka Fire Force Act, 1964, qua the petitioner are hereby quashed.” 6. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that proceedings as against accused No.1 has been quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.13102/2024 and consequently, by applying the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6877 CRL.P No. 1885 of 2025 doctrine of parity, proceedings against the petitioners - accused No.2 and 3 in this petition also deserves to be quashed. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.57216/2019 arising out of FIR in Crime No.75/2019 registered by the 1st respondent – Police, pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 285 and 336 of IPC insofar as the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 5 Sl No.: 7