ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1. 2. The brief factual matrix emanated from the records are that: On the complaint lodged by a person by name Smt. Soumya, the respondent/police have registered a case in Crime No.37/2015 for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code against two accused persons by name Chethan and Bojegowda. It is the case of the prosecution that as per the F.I.R., that on 23.02.2015 at about 3.00 p.m., the complainant Smt. Soumya has lodged a complaint stating that, on 22.02.2015 at about 9.50 p.m., near S.I.T. College, in front of Jamuna Bar and Restaurant, a vehicle bearing reg. No.KA06EB1440 i.e., Honda Activa moped was being driven by one Sri. Bojegowda [accused No.2], on which the son of the complainant by name Rakesh was a pillion rider. When the said moped reached near S.I.T. College, while taking ‘U’ turn, at the same time, a vehicle bearing reg. No.KA02MA97 i.e., car being driven by Chethan [accused No.1] in rash and negligent manner and both the vehicles dashed against each other and due to the impact of the said accident, Rakesh sustained injuries to his right leg, head and other parts of the body. Accused No.2Bojegowda also sustained injuries to his face and other parts of the body. On the above said allegations, the Police have investigated the matter and ultimately, laid the chargesheet against three accused persons. The petitioner is the 3rd accused in the said chargesheet, who is said to be the owner of the vehicle bearing reg. No.KA06EB1440 i.e., Honda Activa moped. The Police have concluded in the chargesheet that there was contributory negligence by the rider of the moped bearing reg. No.KA06EB1440 as well as the driver of the car bearing reg. No.KA02MA97. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner precisely contended before the Court that the Police have committed a serious mistake in filing a common chargesheet with regard to contributory negligence. There should have been two chargesheets filed against two drivers of the vehicles independently. The chargesheet can only be continued against the driver of the car because, in this particular case, the victim i.e., the rider of the moped has also sustained severe injuries and he is a victim in the said accident. There should have been two chargesheets filed against two drivers of the vehicles independently. The chargesheet can only be continued against the driver of the car because, in this particular case, the victim i.e., the rider of the moped has also sustained severe injuries and he is a victim in the said accident. If at all there was any contributory negligence, a separate chargesheet ought to have been filed against him. There is no injury suffered by the driver of the car. Therefore, he cannot not be said to be victim insofar as this case is concerned. Therefore, the chargesheet ought to have been filed against the driver of the car and if at all the Police have found any contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the moped, an independent chargesheet ought to have been filed. In this context, learned counsel Sri. M.Shashidhara contends that, the owner of the moped cannot be made as an accused insofar as this chargesheet is concerned. 4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a decision reported in LAWS(KAR) 2015 3 305 between V.N.S. Prabhakar ROA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. This Court was faced with similar situation and has made an observation that whenever there arises contributory negligence and if one person is a victim and he is supposed to be a witness in a case, in such circumstance, the victim himself should not be made as an accused in the said case. It is observed by this Court at paragraph 5 in the following manner: “So far as the contributory negligence as alleged is concerned, it is a well recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that contributory negligence cannot take any place so far as criminal prosecution is concerned. The contributory negligence only consists of absence of ordinary care which is ordinarily taken in peculiar circumstances of the case. What care that has been taken by Accused No.2 before the occurrence of the accident should have been examined by the Investigating Officer by recording his statement and also what steps the driver of the lorry had taken before the occurrence of the incident, should have been ascertained by the Investigating Officer by examining the lorry driver. The contributory negligence apply only to the cases under tortuous liability is concerned. The contributory negligence apply only to the cases under tortuous liability is concerned. The contributory negligence of the victim is in fact not a defence against the charge sheet filed under Section 279 of IPC or under Section 304A of IPC. Accused will be liable even though he has been a joint contributor of negligence with the victim which would incapacitate the victim from filing a civil suit or claim compensation absolutely against the person who has committed accident. Therefore, the contributory negligence plays a dominant role so far as the cases where compensation claimed by the victim. If the above said principle is applied to the present case, the complaint lodged against the lorry driver, even though there is some contributory negligence might have been there on the part of the driver of the motorcycle, he cannot be made as an accused in the same case. At the most, the said plea of contributory negligence can be taken as a mitigating circumstance at the time of the trial so far as other accused is concerned or it can be taken as a ground for the purpose of apportioning the liability with regard to the compensation is concerned. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the Investigating Officer has committed serious error in laying common charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 & 2 in this case, making the victim as one of the accused in the case.” 5. In this particular case also it is evident from the records and the complaint itself that, the moped rider also sustained injuries. If he is an injured person and he is a victim, he cannot be made as an accused in the same case. Therefore, as I have already observed, if the Police opine that, there was any contributory negligence by the moped rider, the Police should have filed a separate chargesheet against him. In that context, he would not be a victim in the said case and other person, who actually sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries i.e., pillion rider may be the victim in the said case. In the above said facts and circumstances, the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is aptly applicable to the present case and the chargesheet deserves to be quashed insofar as this petitioner is concerned. In the above said facts and circumstances, the ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is aptly applicable to the present case and the chargesheet deserves to be quashed insofar as this petitioner is concerned. Consequently, it has to be said that the Police have to file an independent chargesheet or a separate chargesheet against accused Nos.2 and 3 independently. In such an event only, the petitioner will become an accused if any chargesheet is filed against accused No.2 separately. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended before this Court that the petitioner [accused No.3] has already sold the vehicle i.e., moped involved in the above said accident in favour of accused No.2 and she has already executed Form No.29 and 30 in favour of the said accused No.2. Therefore, she is not punishable under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The records disclose that the petitioner has not produced any document before the Police i.e., with regard to execution of Form No.29 and 30 nor accused No.2 has produced those documents. However, the parties might have not disputed the transaction between themselves. In my opinion that itself is not sufficient to draw a definite inference that, the sale was complete with regard to the vehicle unless the documents which are required under the law are produced before the Investigating Officer or before the Court in order to show that the sale was complete between the parties in accordance with the Sale of Goods Act and also under the Motor Vehicles Act. When Form No.29 and 30 have not been produced either before the Court or before the Investigating Officer and further, added to that the statement of accused No.3 recorded by the Police in this particular case discloses that she has actually taken the interim custody of the vehicle i.e., the moped. Therefore, for all practical purpose, the Police have inferred that the petitioner [accused No.3] is deemed to be the owner of the said vehicle i.e., moped unless it is rebutted by accused No.3, she cannot absolve herself from the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the above said circumstances, that ground is not available insofar as accused No.3 is concerned. In the above said circumstances, the following: ORDER The petition is partly allowed. In the above said circumstances, that ground is not available insofar as accused No.3 is concerned. In the above said circumstances, the following: ORDER The petition is partly allowed. The chargesheet filed by the Police in C.C. No.2198/2015 is hereby quashed insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, though accused No.2 has not challenged the said order. The chargesheet shall continue insofar as accused No.1Chethan is concerned. The respondent/Police are at liberty to file a separate chargesheet against accused Nos.2 and 3 independently, in view of the above said observation made by this Court. In the circumstances, I.A. No.1/2016 filed for stay does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly disposed of.