Telangana High Court
Koushik Raghavan vs State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1044 of 2023
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.5395 of 2021 on the file of the learned XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District registered for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Police while discharging their duties, received a call (dial - 100) that one accident occurred at swimming pool road, near YSR State, 100 feet road, Madhapur. The police rushed to the spot and enquired about the incident and they came to know that the petitioner drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner, as a result, respondent No.2 fell down, and sustained bleeding injuries and went into unconscious stage. Immediately, the petitioner shifted the injured to Medicover Hospital, Madhapur for treatment. Basing on the information received, the Police registered a case in Crime No.1012 of 2021 and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1044 of 2023 learned XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Heard Smt. Bindu G. Naidu, learned counsel representing M/s. Progressive Law Firm, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri. S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.2 and the petitioner was wrongly made him as an accused. Petitioner himself has shifted respondent No.2 to the hospital and paid the amount incurred towards his treatment. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the photograph submitted by the prosecution, it appears that respondent No.2 was minor and without helmet and valid driving licence he drove the bike, due to which, respondent No.2 was absconding. There is no negligence on the part of the petitioner, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
3
SKS,J Crl.P.No.1044 of 2023
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that negligence cannot be decided basing on the averments in the complaint, and the same require trial. Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition and to direct the trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both the learned counsel and having gone through the material available on record, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence as alleged by the Police.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and 1 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1044 of 2023 with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
8. As seen from the record, it is to be noted that the allegation against the petitioner is rash and negligent driving, due to which, respondent No.2 was injured. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner shifted respondent No.2 to the hospital and given treatment with his own money. The statements of the witnesses also show that the negligence was on the part of the petitioner. Investigating Officer also filed charge sheet stating that due to the petitioner negligence only, the accident occurred. Whether the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner or respondent No.2 cannot be decided at this stage and the same requires trial. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya 5 SKS,J Crl.P.No.1044 of 2023 Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
___________ K. SUJANA Date: 26.04.2024 SAI