Bombay High Court
Riya Jariwala vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 6 January, 2025
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2025:BHC-AUG:459-DB
(1)
4005-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4005 OF 2024
1. Riya Jariwala,
Age : 27 Years,Occ. Advocate,
R/o. Plot No. 128, N-3,
CIDCO, Near High Court,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar .. Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through P. S. Jawahar Nagar,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
2. Sachin S/o Narayan Chavan,
Age : 30 Years, Occ. Private Employee,
R/o. Urban Valley Block No. E-103,
CIDCO Mahanagar -1 Gat No. 174, 175
Tisgaon, MIDC, Waluj, Chh. Sambhajinagar. .. Respondents
.....
Advocate for the applicant : Mr. S. S. Varma
A.P.P for Respondent No.1 State : Mr. V. K. Kotecha
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 12, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON: JANUARY 6, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Rohit W. Joshi, J.):
-
1. The present application is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, in order to challenge FIR No. 198 of 2023,
registered against the applicant with Jawahar Nagar Police Station,
Aurangabad on 07.08.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections
279 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. (herein after referred to as
4005-2024.odt
"IPC" for brevity) along with criminal case registered pursuant to the
said First Information Report, bearing S.C.C No. 15546 of 2024 which
is pending for adjudication in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Aurangabad.
2. Respondent No.2-informant has lodged the above First
Information Report on 07.08.2023, alleging that on 31.07.2023 at
about 7.05 p.m., he was driving his car bearing RTO registration
No.MH-20-FU-8521 and while the car was standing stationary at
Gajanan Maharaj Mandir signal, the applicant who was driving her car
bearing RTO registration No. MH-20-EJ-0035, hit his car from the rear
side, thereby making a forceful impact resulting in damage to the rear
bumper on the right side and breaking of tail light. According to him,
the loss incurred due to the said accident was to the tune of
Rs.7,000/-. He states in the First Information Report that initially the
applicant had agreed to compensate the loss. However, since she was
avoiding, he was constrained to lodge the First Information Report
after a period of seven days.
3. Respondent No.1 has completed the investigation and filed
charge sheet in the matter, pursuant to which S.C.C No. 15546 of
2024 is registered against the applicant and is pending on the file of
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Aurangabad.
4005-2024.odt
4. The offence under Section 279 of the IPC is cognizable whereas
the offence under Section 427 of the IPC is non-cognizable. The
applicant has filed the present proceeding challenging the said First
Information Report and criminal case.
5. The contention of Shri. S. S. Varma, learned Advocate for the
applicant is that the ingredients of Section 279 of the IPC are not
made out even if we consider the entire story stated in the First
Information Report to be true and correct. He further states that the
material gathered during the course of the investigation is also grossly
inadequate to establish the ingredients of Section 279 of IPC. He
states that having regard to the nature of the impact, it is clear that
the applicant was not plying the car in rash or negligent manner. He
further states that ingredients of Section 279 of IPC are attracted only
if the driving is rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or
likely to cause hurt or injury to any person. He points out from the
contents of the First Information Report and submits that nobody was
hurt or injured in the accident and that there is no allegation as
regards endangering human life by the manner in which the vehicle
was being plied by the applicant.
6. Per contra, learned A.P.P. Shri.V. K. Kotecha representing
respondent No.1 would contend that the record would indicate that
the allegation against applicant is that she has dashed a stationary car
standing on the traffic signal which is clearly indicative of the fact
4005-2024.odt
that the vehicle was driven by her in a rash and negligent manner. He
therefore, submits that the First Information Report and criminal
prosecution should not be quashed.
7. With the able assistance of both the learned Advocates we have
perused the entire record and adverted to the provisions of law,
particularly Section 279 of the IPC. Shri. Varma, the learned Advocate
for the applicant has placed reliance on two decisions of this Court,
first in the matter of Khizzer Akhtar Shah Vs. The State of
Maharashtra reported in (2016 SCC OnLine Bom. 8159 ) and another
unreported decision of this Court at Principal Seat in the matter of
Peter Roland Misquitta Vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Writ
Petition No. 2044 of 2023) decided on 15th September, 2023. Both
these decisions arise out of criminal application and Writ Petition
respectively praying for quashing of First Information Report and
criminal prosecution. This Court has held in the the matter of Khizzer
Akhtar Shah (supra) that mere rash or negligent driving would not
attract the ingredients of Section 279 of the IPC. In order to attract the
said provision, the rash or negligent driving must be in some
aggravated form i.e. it must be an over hasty act, which the accused
knows that it is likely to cause hurt or injury or endanger human life.
It is held that driving a vehicle in high speed will not always amount
to rash or negligent driving. Similar view is taken in the matter of
Peter Roland Misquitta Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra).
4005-2024.odt
8. The undisputed facts in the present case viewed in the light of
the interpretation of the provision in the aforesaid two judgments
would bring us to the conclusion that the essential ingredients of
Section 279 of the IPC are not made out in the present case. The
record reveals that although it is alleged that the applicant had hit the
vehicle of respondent No.2 while it was standing stationary on traffic
signal, the nature of impact would clearly suggest that some minor
damage has been caused to the vehicle of respondent No.2.
Respondent No.2 has not suffered any physical injury, likewise no
other person has suffered any physical injury. The statements
recorded do not indicate that the vehicle was being plied by the
applicant in such a manner as was likely to endanger human life or to
cause bodily hurt or injury to any person. Therefore, merely because
an accident had occurred, would not mean that the applicant has
committed an offence under Section 279 of the IPC. The un-
controverted material gathered during the course of investigation and
contents of the First Information Report do not establish essential
ingredients of Section 279. The other provision i.e. Section 427 of the
IPC is non cognizable. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the
considered opinion that the First Information Report in the matter
deserves to be quashed along with the criminal case registered
pursuant to the said First Information Report.
9. We may also note that respondent no.2 has clearly stated that
4005-2024.odt
initially he did not intend to file First Information Report since
respondent No.2 had agreed to compensate the monetary loss
allegedly suffered by him. He states that the First Information Report
is lodged only because the applicant did not keep her promise. It is
therefore clear that rather than taking recourse to civil remedy, the
respondent No.2 has sought to put criminal law in motion and this is
another reason for quashing the First Information Report.
10. In the result, the application succeed.
ORDER
(I) The application is allowed.
(II) The proceeding in S.C.C. No. 15546 of 2024 pending before
the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad arising
out of First Information Report vide Crime No. 198 of 2023
registered with Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad
dated 07.08.2023 along with charge sheet No. II-11/2024
dated 16.02.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections
279, 427 of the Indian Penal code is hereby quashed and set
aside against applicant Riya Jariwala.
(ROHIT W. JOSHI) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
JUDGE JUDGE
Y.S. Kulkarni
