Madras High Court
Sathish vs The State Rep By on 19 February, 2025
CRL.OP(MD). No.18520 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
CRL.OP(MD). No.18520 of 2022
and
CRL.MP(MD). Nos.12446 and 12448 of 2022
Sathish ... Petitioner /Accused
Vs.
1.The State rep by,
The Sub Inspector of Police
Traffic Investigation Wing II,
Madurai City. ... 1st Respondent /
Complainant
2. Prakash ... 2nd Respondent /
Defacto complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the entire records
relating to C.C.No.451 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate
Court No.II, Madurai and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan
For R1 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.OP(MD). No.18520 of 2022
For R2 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen
ORDER
This petition has been filed praying to call for the records relating
to C.C.No.451 of 2020 on the file Judicial Magistrate Court No.II,
Madurai and quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this
Court may deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. According to the prosecution, on 03.02.2020, at about 19:45
hours, the petitioner was riding a two-wheeler with the deceased-
Karthikeyan, who is the brother of the second respondent, on the pillion.
While proceeding from east to west on the Sellur-Thathaneri Over
Bridge, the petitioner attempted to overtake a car and applied a sudden
brake. As a result, both fell down and sustained injuries. They were taken
to hospital, but Karthikeyan succumbed to the injuries on the way while
the petitioner survived with injuries. Hence, the case.
3. The deceased-Karthikeyan's brother namely Prakash, filed a
complaint against the petitioner. Based on the complaint, the respondent
police registered a case in Crime No. 24 of 2020 for the alleged offences
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under Sections 279, 337, and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
('IPC'). After registration of the FIR, the Inspector of Police concerned
conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Sections 279 and
304(A) of IPC in F.R. No. 71 of 2020, dated 05.05.2020. The Magistrate
took cognizance of the charges in C.C. No. 451 of 2020. It is to be noted
that the legal representatives of deceased-Karthikeyan filed MCOP
seeking compensation, which was ordered against the petitioner. In these
circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present petition to quash the
criminal case in C.C. No. 451 of 2020.
4. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the materials collected by the investigating agency do not
constitute an offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. To attract
these provisions, the driving must be rash and negligent. Even while
assuming that the materials collected by the investigating agency to be
true at face value, no case under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC is made
out. Hence, the calendar case in C.C. No. 451 of 2022 is an abuse of
process of law. Accordingly, he prays to invoke the power under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to quash the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
same. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following
judgments:-
(i) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
State of Karnataka -vs- Satish reported in (1998) 8
SCC 293.
(ii) Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Narinder Singh and Others -vs- State of Punjab and
Another in (2014) 6 SCC 466.
(iii) Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Babu
Khan and Another -vs- State and Others in W.P.
(CRL.).2227 of 2019.
5. Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-police, submits that the
investigating officer visited the scene of occurrence and collected
relevant materials. In fact, the investigating officer recorded the
statements of 10 witnesses, among whom L.W.2 and L.W.3 are
eyewitnesses to the incident. The statement of the eyewitnesses and other
materials clearly establish that the petitioner was attempting to overtake a
car and applied a sudden brake. As a result, L.W.1's brother-Karthikeyan,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fell down, sustained head injuries, and passed away. Hence, there are
sufficient materials on record to prove that the petitioner rode the
motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, thereby causing the death of
Karthikeyan. Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of the petition.
6. Mr. T.S. Mohammed Mohideen, learned counsel appearing for
the second respondent, submits that the materials available on record are
sufficient to presume that the petitioner has committed the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. Accordingly, he prays
for the dismissal of this petition.
7. This Court has considered the submission made on either side
and perused the final report and the statements of the witnesses recorded
by the investigation officer under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. and other
materials available on record.
8. It is not disputed that the petitioner was riding the motorcycle
and that the deceased-Karthikeyan was a pillion rider. The question to be
determined is whether sufficient materials are available on record to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
presume that the petitioner was riding the motorcycle in a rash and
negligent manner, thereby causing the accident. L.W.2-
Manikandapraphu and L.W.3-Manigandan, who are said to be
eyewitnesses, have clearly given statements before the Investigation
Officer that the petitioner was riding the motorcycle with the deceased as
a pillion rider, from east to west. While attempting to overtake a car, the
petitioner applied a sudden brake, causing the motorcycle to lose
balance. As a result, both fell down, and the deceased sustained head
injuries. The statement of L.W.2-Maniganda Praphu reads as follows:-
“ehDk; vdJ cwtpduhd kzpfz;ld; vd;gtUk; brhe;j
ntiyahf 03/02/2020?k; njjp ,ut[ Rkhh; 07/15 kzp mstpy;
kJiu bry;Y}h; jj;jndhp nkk;ghyk; K:dw; htJ kpdf; k;gk;
mUfpy; brd;W bfhz;oUe;j nghJ gpd;dh; nfl;Lj;bjhpe;j
kJiu. gH';fhej;jj;ijr; nrh;e;j rjPc&; vd;gth; TN-58-
AL-2085 vd;w vz; bfhz;l YAMAHA FZ
,Urf;futhfdj;ij rjPc&; Xl;l gpdr; Pl;oy; g[Jtpsh';Fo
tisahgjp bjU gpshl; ek;gh; 6 bt';flh$ygjp efiur; nrh;e;j
fhh;j;jpnfaid mkuitj;Jf;bfhz;L fpHf;fpypUe;J nkw;F
nehf;fp Xl;or;bry;Yk;nghJ Kd;dhy; brd;w fhiu tyJgf;fk;
Ke;jp bry;y Kad;wnghJ rldhf rjPc&; gpnuf; nghl;ljhy; epiy
jLkhwp ,Urf;fu thfdj;Jld; ,UtUk; fPnH tpGe;jjpy;
rjPc&;f;F jhilapy; fhaKk; gpdd
; hy; cl;fhh;e;j
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fhh;j;jpnfaDf;F gpd;jiyapy; gyj;j ,uj;j fhaKk; Vw;gl;L fPnH
fple;jth;fis me;j tHpahf brd;w rk;gtj;ijg; ghh;j;j eh';fs;
,UtUk; 108 Mk;g[yd;!;f;F jfty; brhy;yp Mk;g[yd;!; te;jJk;
fhak;gl;l ,Utiua[k; Vw;wp muR uh$h$p kUj;Jtkidf;F
mDg;gp itj;njhk;/”
To be noted L.W.3-Manigandan has also given statement on the same
line of L.W.2-Maniganda Praphu.
9. From the above statements, it is easily discernible that the
petitioner was riding in a rash and negligent manner. While overtaking a
car, the petitioner should have ensured that no vehicle was approaching
from the opposite direction. The question whether the petitioner was
actually negligent or not can be decided only after conclusion of trial. As
of now, the materials collected by the investigating officer prima facie
establish that the petitioner was rash and negligent while riding the
motorcycle and due to his reckless riding, Karthikeyan, who was riding
as a pillion rider along with the petitioner sustained injuries and
subsequently died.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court
is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out any case
for quashing the calendar case No.451 of 2022 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Madurai. The citations relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present
case. In view of the statements of the eyewitnesses regarding the
accident, this Court is not inclined to quash C.C.No.451 of 2020 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Madurai. Accordingly, this
Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Madurai .
2. The Sub Inspector of Police
Traffic Investigation Wing II,
Madurai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SAKTHIVEL,J.
pal
Order made in
19.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
