Registered Owner Liable Despite Claim Of Prior Sale | Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea To Quash Proceedings In Fatal Accident Case
Kiran Raj
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice J.M. Khazi declined to quash criminal proceedings initiated against an individual named as Accused No.2 in a road accident case. The Court held that, in view of the material on record and the continuing status of vehicle ownership as per registration records, the petitioner was not entitled to discharge at the threshold stage. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed before the trial court.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 0019/2023 registered at the Cubbon Park Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru. The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from a fatal road accident that occurred on 13th February 2023, near HP Petrol Bunk, Kasturba Road, Bengaluru.
The incident involved a collision between a scooter and a goods vehicle. The deceased, a woman named Sudha, was reportedly riding the scooter while dropping her son to school when the accident took place. The FIR and subsequent charge sheet named two individuals as accused: the driver of the goods vehicle as Accused No.1 and the petitioner, the registered owner of the scooter, as Accused No.2.
According to the petitioner, he had sold the scooter prior to the date of the accident to the complainant under an understanding that the complainant would initiate the process to transfer the Registration Certificate (RC) into his own name. The petitioner contended that the complainant had also taken interim custody of the scooter. On these grounds, the petitioner argued that he was no longer the owner of the vehicle and that his inclusion in the charge sheet was unjustified and amounted to harassment.
The petitioner submitted that there was no material to link him with the incident, as the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle, and he had no involvement in the events that transpired. He maintained that he should not be held responsible for any offence committed during the use of the scooter by a third party. The continued proceedings, he submitted, would constitute an abuse of the process of law.
In response, the High Court Government Pleader representing Respondent No.1—the State—argued that the petitioner remained the registered owner of the scooter on the date of the accident. It was submitted that the deceased, Sudha, was driving the scooter without a valid driving licence at the time. The allegation against the petitioner was that he permitted Sudha to drive the vehicle despite being aware that she was unlicensed.
The prosecution maintained that, since the vehicle continued to stand registered in the name of the petitioner, he was legally presumed to be the owner for all practical purposes. The allegation of knowingly allowing an unlicensed person to operate a motor vehicle added a dimension of culpability, warranting prosecution.
The petitioner’s counsel disputed the applicability of such reasoning, reiterating that the petitioner no longer had possession of the vehicle and could not be held vicariously liable for the accident or the deceased’s lack of a driving licence.
After hearing both sides, the Court proceeded to examine the legal viability of continuing the proceedings against Accused No.2.
Justice J.M. Khazi recorded that “it is not in dispute that as on the date of accident, accused No.2 was the owner of the scooter.” The Court noted that “though he has claimed that he sold the scooter to complainant and the complainant has got released the said vehicle into his interim custody, still the RC is standing in the name of accused No.2.”
The Court observed that “for all practical purposes, he is the owner of the scooter in question.” It stated that “in the light of the prima facie material, accused No.2 cannot seek quashing of the criminal proceedings.”
The Court held that “he is at liberty to prove his defence at the trial.” The petition, therefore, failed the threshold for interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court recorded that “none of the allegations made in the charge sheet are applicable to accused No.2” was a matter of defence that could only be tested during the course of the trial.
Referring to the contention that continuation of proceedings would amount to harassment, the Court noted that such a determination could not be made without full appreciation of evidence, which could only be undertaken during trial proceedings.
Having considered the materials on record and the arguments advanced, the Court concluded that no grounds were made out to invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the criminal case at this preliminary stage.
The Court rejected the petition filed by the petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused No.2, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It further directed the Registry to transmit a copy of the order to the trial court by e-mail.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Smt. Rachana M, Advocate for Sri Appu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Venkat Satyanarayan A, High Court Government Pleader
Case Title: Mr. Prabhakaran K. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KHC:20782
Case Number: CRL.P No. 10284 of 2023
Bench: Justice J.M. Khazi
