The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings, including an attempt-to-murder charge, against a Bengaluru man accused of driving his car towards a traffic police head constable during a drunken-driving enforcement operation. Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the complaint, witness statements and medical records disclosed sufficient grounds for the case to proceed to trial, without treating the allegations as proof of guilt.
Background
The case arose from an incident on October 23, 2021, near Vimanapura Post Office in Bengaluru. According to the prosecution, Ramanjalu, who was driving a Hyundai Creta, allegedly attempted to evade a traffic check. When Head Constable Mubharak Ali tried to stop the vehicle, the car allegedly struck him, causing injuries and damaging police equipment used to detect drunken driving.
The police registered a case and subsequently filed a charge sheet under Sections 279, 307, 353, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), covering rash driving, attempt to murder, assault or criminal force against a public servant, property damage and criminal intimidation.
Ramanjalu approached the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings. His counsel argued that the material did not establish the necessary intention for an attempt-to-murder charge and questioned whether the other offences were made out. The State opposed the petition, relying on the allegations and evidence collected during the investigation.
The Court examined the medical records, which documented multiple abrasions and a displaced, multi-fragmented fracture of the head of the left fibula, classified as grievous injury. It also considered statements from police personnel who were reportedly present during the incident.
On the allegation of attempt to murder, the Court emphasised that the manner of the alleged act and the surrounding circumstances were relevant to assessing intention or knowledge. It observed that the allegation of deliberately driving towards the constable, supported by witness accounts and medical evidence, required examination at trial.
The Court also considered the allegations of rash driving, obstruction of official duty, damage to property and criminal intimidation. It held that the material could not be rejected at the threshold and that the disputed facts required proper evidentiary assessment.
Explaining the limits of its powers, the Court observed:
“The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., though wide in its amplitude, is not intended to convert this Court into a trial Court or to undertake a meticulous dissection of evidence, before the prosecution has had an opportunity to establish its case.”
It further clarified that the prosecution would have to prove its allegations in accordance with law.
On October 16, 2026, the Karnataka High Court rejected Ramanjalu’s criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 50442 of 2022. Justice M. Nagaprasanna clarified that the observations in the order were limited to deciding the quashing petition and must not be treated as findings on guilt.
The trial court was directed to assess the matter independently on the evidence and in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Ramanjalu v. State of Karnataka and Another
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 3658 of 2022
Judge: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Decision Date: October 16, 2026
