BENGALURU: “The authority of a public servant lawfully discharging his duty cannot be made to yield to the arrogance of an individual who considers himself beyond the reach of the law,” the High Court observed while refusing to quash criminal proceedings against a man who ran his car over a head constable conducting drink-and-drive checks, injuring him grievously.
Justice M Nagaprasanna permitted trial against Ramanjalu by rejecting his petition filed in 2022, challenging the legality of proceedings. The court said the complaint, chargesheet, statements of witnesses and medical evidence, disclose a prima facie case warranting a full-fledged trial.
According to the complaint lodged by Mubarak Ali, attached to Airport traffic police station, on the night of October 23, 2021, Ramanjalu, who was driving a car, attempted to evade the drink-and-drive check by speeding away from the spot. When Ali endeavoured to intercept the vehicle, Ramanjalu ran the car over Ali, causing injuries to his thighs and feet.
The petitioner argued that the offence, punishable under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) is wholly unsustainable, as neither the complaint nor material collected during investigation discloses the intention to attempt to commit murder. Ingredients of Section 353 IPC (assault on public servant) are also absent, he claimed.
Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha submitted that the petitioner, appeared to be under the influence of alcohol, allegedly sought to escape scrutiny and drove his vehicle in a reckless manner, resulting in injuries to the complainant. It would amount to placing a premium on conduct that strikes at the authority of law and endangers those entrusted with its enforcement, if the case is quashed at the threshold, he argued.
The court said the petitioner is alleged to have driven his vehicle towards a police official, with the knowledge that such an act was capable of causing death (307 IPC). Likewise, recklessness in driving a motor vehicle on a public road, in a manner endangering human life, brings the accusation within the contours of Section 279.