The declined to quash criminal proceedings against a Bengaluru-based software engineer accused in a road rage incident, observing that such conduct cannot be treated lightly and may attract serious penal consequences, including charges of attempt to murder under the . The Court remarked that lack of patience on the road cannot justify dangerous behaviour and refused to interfere at the investigation stage.
Justice made the observations while hearing a petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising out of an alleged road rage collision involving a scooter carrying a couple and their child in .
Background of the Incident
The case originated from an incident reported on October 26, 2025, when a couple travelling with their child on a Honda Dio scooter were proceeding from Tindlu towards Indiranagar. Near the signal, a red Tata car allegedly rammed the scooter from behind, causing all three riders to fall onto the road.
According to the complaint, the collision occurred following a road rage episode. The scooter driver reportedly sustained injuries on the left side of his ribs due to the impact and fall.
Police initially registered a case invoking provisions relating to rash and negligent driving and endangerment of life.
Offences Initially Registered by Police
Following the incident, authorities registered a case under:
- Section 281 of the (rash driving on a public way)
- Section 125(A) IPC (acts endangering life or personal safety)
- Sections 134(A) and 134(B) of the (duty of driver to assist injured persons and report accident)
- Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act (penalty for failure to comply with such duties)
Subsequently, after transfer of the case from traffic police authorities to , investigators added Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to attempt to murder.
The addition of this provision significantly altered the nature and seriousness of the case.
Petition Filed Seeking Quashing of Attempt to Murder Charge
The accused approached the Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, arguing that the incident was a traffic accident rather than a deliberate act intended to cause serious harm.
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate submitted that there was no intention or motive to attract the offence of attempt to murder.
Counsel argued:
An attempt to murder case has been registered without any statement. The petitioner had no malicious intent.
It was further submitted that the individuals involved were travelling to work at the time of the incident and that the case arose out of circumstances typical of a road traffic accident rather than a premeditated act of violence.
High Court Observes Road Rage Can Escalate Into Serious Offences
While considering the plea, the Court noted that road rage incidents are capable of escalating into serious criminal offences depending on the facts of each case. Justice Nagaprasanna observed that such behaviour cannot be dismissed as routine traffic negligence where allegations suggest deliberate or reckless conduct endangering life.
The Court remarked:
If you have no patience, then there is nothing to do. Bangalore traffic will teach you patience. But you should have it. No road rages will be pardoned.
The Bench indicated that allegations involving intentional ramming of a vehicle carrying multiple occupants warranted investigation and could not be prematurely terminated through judicial intervention at the threshold stage.
Court Declines to Interfere at Investigation Stage
The High Court emphasised that interference under its inherent jurisdiction is ordinarily limited where investigation is still ongoing and material facts remain to be established by the investigating agency.
Observing that road rage itself may constitute a trigger for grave offences depending on the circumstances, the Court stated that it was not inclined to quash the proceedings at the present stage.
When counsel continued to press for relief, the Court advised that the petitioner could approach the Court again after filing of the final report if circumstances justified further intervention.
The Court accordingly observed:
Come after charge sheet.
Petition Withdrawn With Liberty to Approach Court Later
Following the Court’s indication, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea. The High Court allowed withdrawal of the petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings again if the charge sheet ultimately supported the attempt to murder allegation.
The order leaves open the possibility of future judicial scrutiny depending on the outcome of the investigation.
Legal Significance of the Order
The ruling highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach in dealing with road rage incidents involving allegations of intentional vehicular assault. Courts have increasingly recognised that dangerous driving motivated by aggression may, in appropriate circumstances, attract serious criminal liability beyond ordinary traffic offences.
By declining to quash proceedings at the investigation stage, the Karnataka High Court reaffirmed that questions relating to intention and culpability in such cases must ordinarily be determined after completion of investigation rather than through premature judicial intervention.
The decision also underscores the evolving application of attempt to murder provisions in cases involving deliberate vehicular collisions arising from road rage incidents.
