An insurance company executive who ran over a traffic police head constable while trying to dodge a drunken-driving check will have to face trial on an attempted murder charge, the Karnataka High Court has ruled. The decision, delivered by Justice M Nagaprasanna, declines to quash the criminal proceedings against Ramanjalu, a Bengaluru resident, and reaffirms that courts will not step in at a preliminary stage to shield an accused from facing trial when the factual record discloses a credible case.
What the Case Involved
The incident occurred on October 23, 2021, when HAL traffic police intercepted Ramanjalu's vehicle during a routine drunken-driving check. According to the prosecution, instead of stopping, he drove the car recklessly into head constable Mubarak Ali, injuring him and damaging the drunken-driving detection equipment in the process. Police booked him under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including sections covering rash driving, attempted murder, assault or criminal force against a public servant, mischief, and criminal intimidation. Ramanjalu had approached the High Court seeking to quash these proceedings, arguing specifically that there was no material to sustain the attempted murder charge against him.
Why the Court Rejected the Plea
Justice Nagaprasanna examined the medical records, which showed that the collision caused a fracture of the left fibular head, an injury that falls within the legal definition of grievous hurt. The court held that the circumstances surrounding the act, the attempt to evade lawful interception, the statements of eyewitnesses, and the nature of the injuries together constitute sufficient material from which intention or knowledge, the mental element required for an attempted murder charge, could prima facie be inferred. The judge was clear that this inference does not amount to a finding of guilt. Rather, it means the question is one that must be tested through evidence and cross-examination at trial, not settled through a preliminary petition to quash.
The order noted that the petitioner is alleged to have driven his vehicle toward a police official with knowledge that such conduct was capable of causing death, and that the complainant's survival does not diminish the seriousness of the injury sustained or the intent that may be attributed to the act.
Broader Significance for Law Enforcement
The ruling carries weight beyond this single case. Courts across India have periodically faced petitions seeking early dismissal of serious charges in incidents involving vehicles used against police personnel performing their duties, particularly during sobriety checks and traffic enforcement. Justice Nagaprasanna's observation that the law does not permit a motor vehicle to be turned into an instrument of intimidation or violence against enforcement officials signals judicial reluctance to let such cases bypass trial scrutiny merely because the officer survived or the vehicle was the weapon rather than a knife or firearm.
The judgment also reiterates a standard principle of criminal jurisprudence, that the presumption of innocence remains intact until the prosecution proves its case, but that presumption does not translate into a right to avoid trial altogether when the record reveals arguable circumstances pointing to criminal intent. For law enforcement officers performing checkpoint duties, often in conditions of real physical risk from drivers attempting to flee, the order functions as a marker that such confrontations will be treated with due seriousness by the judiciary rather than minimized as incidental traffic offences.
