1 jg.apl 607.16.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 607 OF 2016
Yogesh Murlidharrao Thakare,
Aged about 39 yrs, Occu. Service,
R/o 28, "Dwarka", Mahaveer Nagar,
Badnera Road, Amravati,
Tq. & Distt. Amravati. ... Applicant
VERSUS
(1) Police Station Officer,
Police Station Asegaon Purna,
Tq. Achalpur, Distt. Amravati.
(2) Raju Kisanrao Basonathe,
Aged about 41 years,
Occu. Trainer in N.G.O.
R/o Iqbal Apartment,
Chaprashipura, Camp,
Amravati, Distt. Amravati. ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for the applicant
Shri N. S. Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1
None for the respondent no. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
DATE : 11-12-2017
JUDGMENT (Per : M. G. Giratkar, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties. ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:26 :::
2 jg.apl 607.16.odt
2. The applicant has challenged the lodging of First Information Report (FIR) by the respondent no. 2 with the respondent no. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 466, 471 read Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The applicant was working on the post of Assistant Traffic Superintendent in Paratwada S.T. Depot.
(i) On 25-12-2013, S.T. No. MH-12-DH-7543 met with an accident and total three persons died in the said accident.
(ii) Necessary Departmental procedure was followed and the report was submitted.
(iii) Divisional Controller State Transport Department had submitted the report to Police Station Officer, Asegaon on 27-12-2013.
(iv) Relative of the Bus Driver filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 683/2015 and in criminal writ petition, the order was passed on 28-6-2016. On the basis of the order passed by High Court in the writ petition, the F.I.R. is registered against total 5 persons rendering the services in the S.T. Department on 6-7-2016.
(v) That, as a criminal proceedings, FIR is registered against the
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:26 :::
3 jg.apl 607.16.odt
applicant. The applicant had filed an application for grant of
anticipatory bail and the same was granted to the applicant as per order passed on 14-7-2016.
(vi) On the basis of inspection executed by the S.T. Department, it is clear that there is no any lapses on the part of the applicant while rendering the services. The liability of the accident committed by driver on 25-12-2013 cannot be shouldered on the applicant. FIR is registered by the respondent no. 1 only because respondent no. 2 made frequent complaints.
(vii) In the FIR, name of the applicant is at serial no. 4 wherein it is mentioned that the applicant is in-charge of S.T. Depot, Paratwada and only for that reason, the applicant is shown as accused. In total inquiry conducted by the department, there is no dereliction of duty found on the part of the applicant. Documents placed on record and the report submitted by the department out of the enquiry clearly show that the applicant cannot be responsible for the accident. The applicant was not on duty for maintenance of vehicle/S.T. buses.
(viii) It is submitted that accident took place due to the fault of driver, therefore, staff in S.T. Department cannot be held responsible for the accident. Report clearly reveals that no reason can be assigned for the ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:26 ::: 4 jg.apl 607.16.odt accident to attract Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The death should have been caused due to rash and negligent act on the part of deceased driver. Apparently, from the perusal of the FIR, it is nowhere alleged against the applicant that any such act of rash and negligent in nature is committed by him. In the absence of such allegations, registration of FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 466, 471 read Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is totally erroneous and therefore, prayed to quash and set aside the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2.
4. Heard learned counsel Shri Vaishnav for the applicant. He has pointed out the report lodged by the respondent no. 2. As per the report, S.T. bus was driven by the brother of respondent no. 2. The said bus dashed to the neem tree. In the said accident, brother of the respondent no. 2 and other two passengers died. It is alleged in the report that applicant being Officer of S.T. Depot, it was his duty to check the tyres of bus. Therefore, it is alleged that the applicant is also responsible for the death of his brother and other two passengers.
5. Enquiry was conducted by S.T. Department. It is pointed out by learned counsel Shri Vaishnav that from the perusal of paragraph ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:26 ::: 5 jg.apl 607.16.odt 2 of the report it is clear that on 25-12-2013, bus no. MH-12-DH-7543 of Paratwada Depot was dashed to the tree. At page 3 of the said report, it is observed by the Enquiry Officer that the said bus dashed to the tree. One wooden plank inserted in the tyre and tyre was burst. It was alleged in the report by the respondent no. 2 that the tyres of the S.T. bus were not in a proper condition and, therefore, accident took place.
6. Prima facie from the perusal of enquiry report, it is clear that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver himself (brother of respondent no. 2). Nothing on record to show that the applicant was in any manner responsible for the said accident. From the face value of the report, it is clear that no offence is made out against the applicant to show that he was rash or negligent for the said accident.
7. Admittedly, the applicant was the Assistant Traffic Superintendent. Admittedly, he was not driving the S.T. bus. Brother of the respondent no. 2 himself was driving S.T. bus. It appears that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of deceased brother of the respondent no. 2. Therefore, it is clear that crime is ::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:26 ::: 6 jg.apl 607.16.odt wrongly registered against the applicant. Hence, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335], FIR registered against the applicant is liable to be quashed and set aside. In the result, we pass the following order.
ORDER The criminal application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i) which reads as under.
(i) Quash the F.I.R. registered against the applicant bearing No. 0178 dtd. 06.07.2016 u/s 304-A, 466, 471 r/w 34 I.P.C. P.S. Asegaon Purna, Amravati be dropped by quashing the F.I.R. pertaining to the applicant shown as accused No. 4 in the F.I.R., with kind consideration and in the interest of justice and fair play.
(ii) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
::: Uploaded on - 13/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2017 01:47:26 :::