Kavita Rajpoot vs The State Of U.P And Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 6051 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 26
 

 
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 4866 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Kavita Rajpoot
 
Respondent :- The State Of U.P And Ors.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Dharmendra Kr Mishra
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi,J.

Supplementary affidavit filed today  is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer for quashing the Charge-sheet No. 287 of 2010 and entire criminal proceeding in Case Crime No. 50 of 2010, under section279/304A I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the applicant is the owner of qualis car. According to the prosecution case, the accident took place by the qualis car, belongs to the applicant, in which due to negligence of driver, the mother of the complainant was injured and succumbed to the injuries. Neither the applicant was named in the FIR nor in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C.  Subsequently, notice was given by the investigating officer to give information, who was the driver on the date  of accident i.e. 25.01.2010, otherwise she would be presumed that she was the owner and driver. Since the applicant failed to give information  regarding driver, hence charge-sheet was submitted merely on presumption under section 279/304A IPC Hence, charge-sheet as well as entire proceeding including summoning order is liable to be quashed.

Learned AGA opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that by filing supplementary affidavit today, she disclosed that said qualis car was driven by Shyam Singh Rajpoot, who had valid and effective driving licence issued from the office of RTO, Hamirpur, and the vehicle was not being driven by the applicant at the time of alleged incident. This fact was not disclosed before the investigating officer,hence, the charge-sheet has been submitted by the investigating officer against the applicant. 

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation  and submission made by both the parties, hence at this stage I am not inclined to quash the proceeding. The objection may be raised  before the court concerned. If any objection is raised before the trial court, the same shall be considered expeditiously in accordance with law. Hence at this stage I am not inclined to quash the proceeding.

However, in view of the fact of the present case, it is expected that if applicant surrenders before the courts below and move bail application within thirty days from today, then the same shall be considered, and disposed of expeditiously, in accordance with law, in view of the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004(57) ALR 390 and  by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others 2009(2) Crime 4 SC. If due to any reason bail application could not be decided the applicant may be released on interim bail till disposal of the bail application finally. 

With the aforesaid observation this application is finally disposed off.

Order Date :- 23.11.2011

v.k.updh.