Madras High Court
Ilango vs The State Rep By on 4 March, 2021
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12106 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATE ON WHICH RESERVED : 04.03.2021
DATE ON WHICH PRONOUNCED : 01.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12106 of 2017
and
Crl MP(MD)No.8367 of 2017
Ilango ... Petitioner/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Ottanchatram Police Station,
Dindigul District. ... 1st Respondent/Complainant
2.Mallika ... 2nd Respondent/Defacto
Complainant
Prayer:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call
for the records relating to the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.283 of 2016 on the
file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Ottanchatram and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For R1 : Mr.M.Ganesan,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 : No Appearance
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12106 of 2017
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.283 of 2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ottanchatram.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief:-
i) On 03.08.2014, at about 02.00 p.m, the deceased was riding a two
wheeler bearing Registration No.57-AW-5631 in Madurai – Dindigul
Highway along with his wife, namely, Lakshmi. When they were nearing
the place of occurrence, the car was driven by its driver namely, Ilangovan,
who is the petitioner herein, bearing Registration No.59-BA-5476, in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which,
the deceased fell down and sustained injuries. He was taken to the
Government Hospital, Ottanchatram and later, to the Government Rajaji
Hospital, Madurai and there he died on 07.08.2014, at abut 01.00 a.m.
ii) So, based upon the compliant given by the daughter of the
deceased, a case in Crime No.260 of 2014 for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered on the file of the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12106 of 2017
respondent at about 09.00 a.m on 07.08.2014. The Investigating Officer
collected materials and recorded the statements of the witnesses and filed a
final report on 11.10.2014 alleging that the petitioner has committed the
offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The case was taken
on file by the Trial Court.
3. Challenging the final report, seeking quashment of the same, the
accused has preferred this petition mainly on the ground that in the final
report, no averments or allegations have been levelled against the petitioner
stating that only because of his rash and negligent driving, the occurrence
took place, since none of the ingredients menitoned in the final report are
attracted against the petitioner and the final report is liable to be quashed.
4. Heard both sides.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased attempted to turn
the vehicle from East – West direction to cross the road and in that process,
lost the balance since both the deceased and his wife namely, Lakshmi were
obese, fell down from the vehicle and suffered injuries. Whether the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12106 of 2017
occurrence took place as stated by the prosecution or as stated by the
petitioner cannot be a matter for discussion in this petition. They require
proper evidence and proof through trial proceedings.
6. According to the petitioner, the ingredients under Section 279 IPC
is not attracted. So, also, 304-A IPC since there is no allegation of rash &
negligent driving on the part of the petitioner in the final report. As per the
judgments of the Bombay High Court reported in R.Krishna Ganga Raju
Vs. The State of Maharashtra through Mahim Police Station and
Khizzer Akhtar Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra, the final report is
liable to be quashed.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused drove the vehicle
behind the the deceased and hit him neligently by driving the vehicle rashly
and negligently. Even though, the words 'rash and negligent' is absent in the
final report, a reading of the First Information Report and statements of the
witnesses shows that they have clearly mentioned about the rash and
negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. As mentioned earlier, it is a
matter for evidence at the time of trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12106 of 2017
8. It is not in dispute that the deceased died due to the injuries
sustained in the occurrence. So, the contention on the part of the petitioner
that the act did not endanger any human life, cannot be accepted at this
stage. Whether it was a self invited accident or hit by the petitioner in a rash
and negligent manner, can be considered only during the trial proceedings.
9. Moreover, the judgments cited by the petitioner have been decided
on their own facts and circumstances of the case. In the first case cited,
when the police men were on duty on the eve of Nakabandi day, they found
the petitioner driving his vehicle recklessly and negligently in the road.
They have taken into custody. So, in this circumstances only the question
that arose before that Court, was whether the allegation mentioned by the
prosecution would attract the offence under Section 279 IPC. So, that case
is clearly distinguished from the present case.
10. In the second case, the prosecution relied upon the statement of
the sole eye-witness. In the statement, at the time of the occurrence, when
the deceased was crossing the road, he reached near the devider, turned
back on seeing some vehicles, coming from the opposite direction and in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12106 of 2017
that process, he lost his balance and dashed against the vehicle. So, on
reading the statements of the sole eye-witness, the High Court came to the
finding that no ingredients of the offences under Section 279 and 304-A IPC
were attracted in the light of the statements of the witnesses. Because of the
deceased turning back, loss of control, on seeing the vehicle coming in the
opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle. So, it would clearly show
that the vehicle was not driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner.
Only on that ground, the final report was quashed. But, here, this is not of
such a nature. The petitioner wants to bring his defence within the four
corners of pure accident as defined under Section 80 IPC. A reading of the
statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation,
dose not even remotedly suggest that only the deceased while crossing the
road negligently, invited the accident.
11. Moreover, if the petitioner wants to bring his case within four
corners of a pure accident as defined under Section 80 IPC, that too, on
account of the negligence, on the part of the deceased, it can be done only
during the trial proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12106 of 2017
12. So, I am of the considered view that this is not a fit case to quash
the final report. It has to be pursued to its logical conclusion. So, none of the
arguments advanced by the petitioner are appealing. So, this petition
deserves dismissal and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
13. The Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case on merits
without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in
this petition.
14. After pronouncing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner
requested the Court to pass a direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Ottanchatram, to dispose of the matter within a short time. So, considering
his request, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the case within a period
of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
....4.2021
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking order
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12106 of 2017
G.ILANGOVAN,J.,
dss
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is
presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate Court,
Ottanchatram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Ottanchatram Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.12106 of 2017
and
Crl MP(MD)No.8367 of 2017
01.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
