Yogesh Murlidharrao Thakare vs Police Station Officer, P.S. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9475 Bom

                                                      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.

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





                                           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

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

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

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