Himachal Pradesh High Court

Akrant Thakur vs State Of H.P. And Anr on 30 September, 2024

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9326 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr. MMO No 922 of 2022.

Reserved on: 02.09.2024.

Date of Decision: 30.09.2024.

           Akrant Thakur                                                                      ...Petitioner
                                                     Versus

           State of H.P. and Anr.                                                        ...Respondents


           Coram

Hon'ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No

For the Petitioner : Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ayushi Negi, Deputy Advocate

General for respondent No.1/State.

None for respondent No.2.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioner has filed the present petition for

quashing of FIR No. 252 of 2018, dated 10.12.2018 registered for the

commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of

the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Section

185 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as MV Act)

registered with Police Station Dhalli, District Shimla. It has been

asserted that the matter has been compromised between the

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9326 )

parties. The accident occurred because of the ice on the road. The

vehicle skidded and hit the crash barrier. It was wrongly asserted

that the petitioner had consumed liquor. No report of SFSL was

brought on record to establish this fact. The complainant has left

Shimla and did not appear before the Court on account of his

examination. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be

allowed and the FIR be quashed.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report

asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police stating

that a vehicle bearing registration No. HP63A-5666 fell on the

highway after breaking the crash barrier of the upper road. The

petitioner and another occupant had sustained injuries. The police

registered the FIR and found that the vehicle had left the upper

road and fallen on the lower road. The petitioner and the injured

Navjot Singh sustained injuries in the accident. The blood sample

of the petitioner was sent to SFSL, Junga and it was found to be

containing 140.83 mg of Alcohol. The challan was presented before

the Court.

3. The informant made a statement on 09.01.2023 that he

had no objection for quashing of the FIR.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9326 )

4. The injured was not produced before the Court and it

was stated on behalf of the petitioner that the injured is not a

necessary party to the present petition.

5. I have heard Mr. S.D. Gill learned counsel for the

petitioner who submitted that the matter had been compromised

between the informant and the accused. The injured is not a

necessary party and he could not be traced. He prayed that the

present petition be allowed and the FIR be quashed based on the

compromise effected between the parties. He further submitted

that the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC and

185 of the MV Act are not made out against the petitioner. Hence,

he prayed that the FIR be quashed.

6. A perusal of the FIR shows that the informant had

reported the incident to the police. He had not sustained any injury

and he was not affected by the accident in any manner. Therefore,

he is not likely to be affected adversely by the quashing of the FIR.

On the other hand, the occupant had sustained injuries in the

accident and he is likely to be affected by the quashing of the FIR.

He had sustained injuries and he has an interest in prosecuting the

matter. Therefore, the submission that the injured is not a

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9326 )

necessary party in a proceeding for quashing the FIR cannot be

accepted. It is a fundamental principle of natural justice that a

person against whom an order is proposed to be passed is entitled

to a hearing before such an order is passed. In the present case, an

order of quashing the FIR will affect the injured adversely, as he

would be deprived of getting justice for the injuries caused to him.

Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed based on the compromise

without recording his consent.

7. It was submitted that the contents of the FIR do not

disclose the commission of any cognizable offence and the incident

had taken place due to the ice on the road. This submission is not to

be appreciated in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is a

defence available to the accused which he can prove before the

learned Trial Court.

8. In the present case the vehicle had broken the crash

barrier and fell on the lower road. It was specifically stated in the

FIR that the road was wide at the place of the incident. The vehicles

do not usually leave the road unless there is some negligence found

on the part of the driver. It was laid down in Keshav Murti vs. State

2002 Criminal Law 103 (Karnataka) that where the accident had

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9326 )

taken place on a wide road and the vehicle had left the road, the

maxim of res ipsa loquitur would apply and the burden would shift

upon the accused to explain as to how the accident had taken place.

It was observed:

"Here is a car proceeding from Bangalore to Shimoga. At the place concerned, there are no other vehicles on the road. There is no obstruction. The road is of a width of 19 ft. of

cement and tar road, with 6 ft. kacha road on either side. Still, the vehicle hits a roadside tree. Added to that, there is a report of IMV Inspector at Ex. P. 5 to the effect that the accident is not due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle. In

such a situation, an accident of this nature would prima facie

show that the same could not be accounted for anything other than the negligence of the driver of the vehicle i.e., the petitioner. A presumption in that regard thus arises. In such a case, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, it is for the

petitioner-driver to explain how the accident occurred without negligence on his part. What the petitioner has done in the course of his examination under Section 313 of the

Criminal Procedure Code is, simply denying everything. He does not say anything, and even to the general question that

is asked at the end as to whether he has got anything to say, he did not choose to say anything, nor did he care to explain the manner in which the accident occurred, i.e., in order to

rebut the above said presumption as regards the accident occurring due to his negligence, and in order to show that accident occurred for a particular reason not attributable to his negligence. This was, therefore, an appropriate case wherein, on the basis of a presumption that the Supreme Court was speaking about that conviction could be based."

9. Similarly, it was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Thakur Singh Vs. State of Punjab 2003(9) SCC 208 that where

the accident speaks for itself, it is sufficient for the prosecution to

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9326 )

establish the accident and the burden will shift upon the accused to

explain the same. Thus, where the accused admits that he was

driving the vehicle which fell into a canal, the burden was upon him

to establish that the accident had taken place due to some

circumstances other than his negligence. It was observed:

"It is admitted that the petitioner himself was driving the vehicle at the relevant time. It is also admitted that the bus

was driven over a bridge and then it fell into the canal. In such a situation the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur comes into play and the burden shifts onto the man who was in control

of the automobile to establish that the accident did not happen on account of any negligence on his part. He did not

succeed in showing that the accident happened due to causes other than negligence on his part."

10. Thus, in the present case prima facie the petitioner's

negligence is established at this stage by taking the contents of the

FIR to be correct. Hence, the FIR cannot be quashed in the exercise

of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

11. Consequently, the present petition fails and the same is

dismissed.

12. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also

pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2024:HHC:9326 )

13. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain

confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no

bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the Case.