Karnataka High Court Stays Investigation in Lamborghini Rash Driving Case
The Karnataka High Court on Friday issued a stay order on further investigation in a high-profile case registered against a Lamborghini car owner accused of rash driving in Bengaluru. The court's decision came during a hearing that saw intense arguments from both sides, with the petitioner's counsel challenging the very basis of the allegations.
Details of the Case and Court Proceedings
The accused, identified as Chiranth B R, found himself in legal trouble after a video purportedly showing him driving recklessly went viral on social media platforms. Based on this footage, the Kengeri traffic police registered a case under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Naya Sanhita, which pertains to rash driving, along with several provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
During the hearing before the single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, Advocate Rajath, representing the petitioner, presented a compelling argument. He contended that the Lamborghini was moving at an average speed of around 60 to 70 kilometers per hour, which, in his view, could not be classified as speeding under the circumstances. The bench was shown the viral video, and upon reviewing it, Justice Nagaprasanna made a notable oral observation, questioning the feasibility of high-speed driving in Bengaluru's notorious traffic conditions.
Court's Observations and Ruling
The court's scrutiny extended beyond just the speed allegations. Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesh pointed out that the vehicle was fitted with a modified silencer, causing it to produce excessive noise beyond permitted decibel levels. In response, the court acknowledged this violation, stating that the petitioner had landed himself in soup due to the roaring noise of the car.
As a result, the court imposed a fine on the petitioner for the noise-retrofitted silencer, which has since been paid. Taking note of the submission that the silencer had been changed, Justice Nagaprasanna deemed it appropriate to stall further investigation against the petitioner until the next hearing date, scheduled for February 6. The court indicated that appropriate orders would be passed at the closure of proceedings, potentially in favor of the petitioner if conditions are met.
Potential Community Service and Broader Implications
In a significant development during the hearing, the court hinted at the possibility of directing the accused to perform community service. This suggestion aligns with a growing trend in judicial approaches to traffic violations, emphasizing rehabilitation over mere punitive measures. The case highlights the intersection of social media evidence, legal interpretations of rash driving, and environmental concerns related to vehicle modifications.
The stay order underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing evidence and ensuring fair proceedings, even in cases that capture public attention through viral content. As Bengaluru continues to grapple with traffic management and noise pollution issues, this ruling may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.
