Bengaluru: The law does not permit a motor vehicle to be converted into an instrument of intimidation or violence against those entrusted with its enforcement, Karnataka High Court has observed while refusing to quash an attempt-to-murder case against a Bengaluru resident accused of running over a traffic police head constable during a drunken-driving check.In an Oct 16 judgment, Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed by Ramanjalu, a Nagarabhavi resident and general manager at a private insurance company, who challenged the invocation of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with attempt to murder.According to the prosecution, on Oct 23, 2021, Ramanjalu was driving a Hyundai Creta when he was intercepted by HAL traffic police during a drive against drunk driving. When head constable Mubarak Ali attempted to stop the vehicle, the accused allegedly refused to stop and drove towards the officer, running over his legs and causing injuries to his thighs and feet.The incident also damaged the police department’s drunken-driving detection machine. A case was registered the following day under Sections 279, 307, 353, 427 and 506 of the IPC.Challenging the proceedings, Ramanjalu argued that there was no material to invoke the attempt-to-murder charge or establish that he had intentionally used criminal force to deter the officer from discharging his official duties. The police opposed his plea.After examining the complaint and charge sheet, the court noted that the accused had allegedly confronted the head constable immediately before the incident, asking, “Who told you to stop me? Do you know who I am?” The alleged remarks were followed by the accused driving towards the officer and running over his legs, causing grievous injuries.The judge observed that the words could not be viewed in isolation from the alleged conduct that followed them. Expressions of arrogance or indignation could assume the character of intimidation when accompanied by acts of violence, he said.“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,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.The court noted that the officer had suffered a fracture classified as grievous and that the accused was alleged to have driven towards him knowing that such an act could cause death.Whether the act was accompanied by the intention or knowledge necessary to constitute an offence under Section 307 could not be decided at the threshold, the judge said. The material on record disclosed sufficient circumstances to prima facie infer the requisite criminal intent, leaving the final determination to the trial court.While dismissing the petition, the HC observed that the rule of law would lose its meaning if lawful enforcement could be met with alleged violence and prosecution ended without the allegations being tested at trial. It also reiterated that the presumption of innocence remained intact until guilt was established in accordance with law.
