Dhiraj Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 2411 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17557 of 2021
        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2019 Thana- BABUBARHI District- Madhubani
     ======================================================

Dhiraj Kumar Singh Son Of Rajendra Prasad Singh Resident of Village - Shighiniya Chouk, Bhauara, P.S.- Madhubani Town, Distt.- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Ramprit Sahu Son of Late Nashib Mahto Resident of Village - Moglaha, P.S.- Laukha, (Lalmaniya O.P.), Distt.- Madhubani.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Subhash Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 05-05-2022

Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the

cognizance order dated 12.1.2020/13.1.2020 passed by the

learned A.C.J.M.-III, Madhubani in Babubarhi P.S. Case No.

20 of 2019 (C.R.I. No. 134 of 2019) corresponding to T.R.

No. 2028 of 2019 by which the learned court below has

been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner for the

offence under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. As per the prosecution story, on the basis

of written report of Opposite Party No.2, FIR bearing

Babubarhi P.S. Case No. 20 of 2019 dated 20.1.2019 was Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17557 of 2021 dt.05-05-2022

registered under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian

Penal Code.

4. As per the prosecution story, the son of

the informant, namely, Chandan Kumar had boarded an

Auto on 11.12.2018. The allegation is that another Auto

without any registration number was coming from Babubarhi

dashed the Auto on which his son was sitting, as a result

whereafter he suffered injuries. Further allegation is that the

driver of the said unnumbered vehicle thereafter ran away

leaving the Auto behind. His son was taken to Madhubani

hospital for treatment. The alleged Auto was seized and was

kept at the informant's house and after returning from the

hospital at Madhubani, the F.I.R. was instituted and the Auto

too was handed over to the police.

5. The police investigated the matter and

submitted charge-sheet No. 107 of 2019 dated 22.6.2019 for

the offence under sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian

Penal Code against the petitioner herein who owns the D.K.

Automobiles and is in business of selling of Bajaj Auto. The

petitioner has chosen not to annex the copy of the charge-

sheet alongwith this petition.

6. The learned court below took up the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17557 of 2021 dt.05-05-2022

matter and having been prima facie satisfied with the

contents in the case diary and the charge-sheet submitted by

the police took cognizance against the petitioner under

sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code vide an

order dated 12.1.2020/13.1.2020.

7. Being aggrieved by the said order of

cognizance, the petitioner herein has moved this court under

section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that he owns the D.K. Automobiles, Madhubani and

he is in business of selling Autos. He further submits that it

was sold to one Sanjay Kumar Ray who has accepted this

fact and as such the learned court below has wrongly taken

cognizance against him. The further submission of the

counsel of the petitioner is that as per the FIR, the accident

took place on 11.12.2018 whereas Sanjay Kumar Ray had

already insured the vehicle on 10.12.2018 through Bajaj

Allinze Insurance Company. His last submission is that the

learned court below released the said vehicle in favour of

Sanjay Kumar Ray which clearly shows that the petitioner

had already sold that Auto to him and as such he does not

have any liability in the matter.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17557 of 2021 dt.05-05-2022

9. It is important to note here that the

petitioner accepts that he is the owner of the D.K.

Automobiles at Madhubani and he is in the business of

selling Autos. Thus any vehicle that is sold to a particular

person must be having a receipt for the sale showing the

price of the vehicle and all other details related to it.

Although the petitioner claims to have sold this particular

Auto to Mr. Sanjay Kumar Ray; he failed to even bring on

record any sale letter in favour of the said Sanjay Kumar

Ray. Instead, he is harping on the alleged documents of the

said Sanjay Kumar Ray to buttress his claim to have sold the

Auto to him. He is also relying on the release order of the

vehicle in favour of the Sanjay Kumar Ray to put forward

his claim that he had actually sold that Auto.

10. This Court is unable to understand the

fact that an Automobile Company does not have any record

of alleged sell in favour of the said Sanjay Kumar Ray. The

learned counsel for the petitioner too was unable to answer

on the point as to when the Auto was sold and why the sale

receipt was not brought on record. He further failed to

provide the date wise sale record of the showroom to show

the sale of the alleged Auto. In simple term, the date and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17557 of 2021 dt.05-05-2022

receipt of the alleged sell is missing in the entire petition.

11. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the

petitioner despite being owner of the Automobile Showroom

is unable to even fulfill the basic requirement i.e. the date

and the sale letter/sale receipt in favour of the said Sanjay

Kumar Ray.

12. This Court is thus fully satisfied that on

the basis of the F.I.R., the contents in the case diary as also

after going through the charge-sheet submitted by the police,

the learned court below having been prima facie satisfied has

rightly taken cognizance vide an order dated

12.1.2020/13.1.2020 against the petitioner under section 279,

337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code which need no

interference.

13. The application preferred by the

petitioner under section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          1.05.2022
Transmission Date       10.05.2022