SHIVAYOGI SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent State. Perused the records.

(2.) PETITIONER , who is arraigned as accused No.3 in C.C. No.103/2013 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, has sought for quashing of the above said entire proceedings, which was registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity).

(3.) THE brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, as the incessant rains have lashed in the city, the compound wall of the houses of accused Nos.1 to 3 has collapsed on 26.07.2012. As such, two persons by name Sharada and Sangamesh have succumbed to the injuries sustained in the collapse of said compound wall on them. It is the allegation that, on 26.07.2012 itself, one Mr. Shivareddy father of deceased Sharada and grandfather of Sangamesh has submitted a report to the police stating that the compound wall has collapsed on Sharada and Sangamesh due to incessant rains and he doesn't suspect on any person. On the basis of that report, the police have registered a UDR in No. 26/12 under Section 174 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity) and has conducted the inquest on the dead body. It appears that they have closed the case by submitting a report. Subsequently, on 26.08.2012 i.e., exactly after one month of alleged incident the husband of deceased Sharada by name Ninganagouda S/o.Channabasanagouda Goudar has lodged a complaint before police making allegations that accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the owners of said compound wall and adjacent owners of properties have not constructed the compound wall properly. It is specifically alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 (petitioners herein) without looking into fitness and capacity of old compound wall have constructed the wall to the height of about 5 6 ft. on the said old compound wall. It is also alleged that the old compound wall was in dilapidated condition and constructed with stone and mud and it had no capacity of bearing the weight of compound wall of 5 6 ft. height upon it. It is also alleged that at the time of construction of said extended compound wall, the complainant and others have objected for the same. But inspite of that, they have constructed the same. It is also alleged that accused No.3 had been releasing the rain water from their house towards said compound wall and so far no arrangement has been made for the proper flow of rain water or any water from the houses of accused Nos.1 to