Telangana High Court
Koushik Raghavan vs State Of Telangana on 26 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1044 of 2023
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.1 in
C.C.No.5395 of 2021 on the file of the learned XII Additional
Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District
registered for the offence punishable under Section 338 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'I.P.C').
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Police while
discharging their duties, received a call (dial - 100) that one
accident occurred at swimming pool road, near YSR State, 100
feet road, Madhapur. The police rushed to the spot and
enquired about the incident and they came to know that the
petitioner drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner, as a
result, respondent No.2 fell down, and sustained bleeding
injuries and went into unconscious stage. Immediately, the
petitioner shifted the injured to Medicover Hospital, Madhapur
for treatment. Basing on the information received, the Police
registered a case in Crime No.1012 of 2021 and after
completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet before the
SKS,J
learned XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally,
Ranga Reddy District.
3. Heard Smt. Bindu G. Naidu, learned counsel
representing M/s. Progressive Law Firm, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri. S. Ganesh,
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of
respondent No.1-State. Though notice served upon
respondent No.2, none appeared on his behalf.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
accident was occurred due to the negligence of respondent
No.2 and the petitioner was wrongly made him as an accused.
Petitioner himself has shifted respondent No.2 to the hospital
and paid the amount incurred towards his treatment.
Learned counsel further submitted that as per the photograph
submitted by the prosecution, it appears that respondent No.2
was minor and without helmet and valid driving licence he
drove the bike, due to which, respondent No.2 was
absconding. There is no negligence on the part of the
petitioner, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings
against the petitioner.
SKS,J
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submitted that negligence cannot be decided basing on the
averments in the complaint, and the same require trial.
Hence, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition and to direct
the trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as
possible.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made by both
the learned counsel and having gone through the material
available on record, to quash the proceedings under Section
482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in
the complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offence
as alleged by the Police.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.
Surendra Kori 1, wherein in paragraph No.14 it is held as
follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as
a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has,
in several judgments, held that the inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though
wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
with caution. The High Court, under Section
482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving
a prima facie decision in a case where the
entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so
when the evidence has not been collected and
produced before the Court and the issues
involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide
magnitude and cannot be seen in their true
perspective without sufficient material."
8. As seen from the record, it is to be noted that the
allegation against the petitioner is rash and negligent driving,
due to which, respondent No.2 was injured. It is an admitted
fact that the petitioner shifted respondent No.2 to the hospital
and given treatment with his own money. The statements of
the witnesses also show that the negligence was on the part of
the petitioner. Investigating Officer also filed charge sheet
stating that due to the petitioner negligence only, the accident
occurred. Whether the accident was occurred due to the
negligence of the petitioner or respondent No.2 cannot be
decided at this stage and the same requires trial. Therefore,
this Court does not find any merit in the criminal petition to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
9. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya
SKS,J
Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in the
criminal petition to quash the proceedings against the
petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the
matter, as expeditiously as possible.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
___________
K. SUJANA
Date: 26.04.2024
SAI
