Telangana High Court
Raghvendra Shetty S vs The State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11851 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 in C.C.No.904 of 2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before Medchal Police Station, against the petitioner, stating that he received information from Patrol-I mobile staff about an accident, whereunder, a pedestrian crossing the road from Navaneetha Petrol Pump to Andhra Bank, near Venkateshwara Theatre, Medchal, was hit by car bearing No.KA 50 M 4523 driven recklessly towards Medchal check post. It was further stated that the petitioner who was the 2 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11851 of 2023 driver of the said car, immediately shifted the injured pedestrian to Balaji Hospital, Kompally, via ambulance. Upon inquiry, it was confirmed by the ambulance staff and hospital staff that the pedestrian suffered severe head injuries. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered case against the petitioner in Crime No.717 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.904 of 2020, before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Cyberabad Commissionerate.
3. Heard Sri Kandhula Ankama Rao, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State. In spite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no prior convictions and on 03.10.2020 at about 7:45 pm he was driving home from work on NH44 via Medchal, within the speed limit of 40-45 km/hr and all of a sudden an unknown person 3 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11851 of 2023 crossed the road without warning or hand sign which resulted in colliding with the car of petitioner. He asserted that the petitioner being responsible citizen had immediately stopped his vehicle and attended to the victim, called an ambulance, and admitted the victim to Balaji Hospital and even paid the bills. Despite the responsible actions of the petitioner, an FIR was registered under Section 337 IPC, later updated to Section 304A after the death of the victim.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly submitted that the charges framed against the petitioner are false, motivated, and vexatious, emphasizing the lack of zebra crossings, signals, or streetlights in the area. He lamented that the speed of car driven by petitioner was within the limit and that he even took care of the medical expenses of the victim which would clearly certify his character and conduct as a citizen. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled 4 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11851 of 2023 against the petitioner are serious in nature, which require trial. Therefore, at this stage, quashing of proceedings against the petitioner does not arise. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on going through the material placed on record, it is noted that the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 304A of IPC and the only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no negligence or ignorance on the part of the petitioner which resulted in death of the victim and that it was the victim himself who attempted to cross the road all of sudden which resulted in his collusion with the car driven by the petitioner, and unlike other cases, instead of running away from the place of accident, the petitioner had immediately stopped his car and made arrangements to call the ambulance, shift him to hospital for treatment and also paid the medical expenses, whereas, it is the specific stand of the prosecution that proceedings against the petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage as there are serious allegations against him which require trial. 5
SKS,J Crl.P.No.11851 of 2023
8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh 1, whereunder, in paragraph No.10 it was categorically held as under:
"10. From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379 6 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11851 of 2023 prosecution/investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not."
9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 2, observed as under:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function 2 (2012) 10 SCC 155 7 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11851 of 2023 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 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."
10. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, it becomes quite imperative to note that to constitute offence under Section 304A of IPC the prosecution has to prove negligence on the part of the petitioner which is a matter of full-fledged trial. Further, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes quite relevant to determine several other factors, such as, speed at which the petitioner was driving the vehicle, panchanama conducted at the scene of offence, as it was a busy road possibility of finding 8 SKS,J Crl.P.No.11851 of 2023 independent eye witnesses, if any, and the same are triable issues. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact that the victim was hit by the car of petitioner, due to which he sustained severe injuries which resulted in his death and mere admitting the victim to the hospital and looking after his medical expenses cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings initiated against him.
11. Therefore, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh (supra) and in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori (supra 2), this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this Criminal Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_______________ K. SUJANA, J Date:04 .11.2024 PT