Telangana High Court

Raghvendra Shetty S vs The State Of Telangana on 4 November, 2024

       THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA


          CRIMINAL PETITION No.11851 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 in C.C.No.904 of

2020 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil

Judge-cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal,

Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences

punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent

No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before

Medchal Police Station, against the petitioner, stating that he

received information from Patrol-I mobile staff about an

accident, whereunder, a pedestrian crossing the road from

Navaneetha Petrol Pump to Andhra Bank, near

Venkateshwara Theatre, Medchal, was hit by car bearing

No.KA 50 M 4523 driven recklessly towards Medchal check

post. It was further stated that the petitioner who was the

SKS,J

driver of the said car, immediately shifted the injured

pedestrian to Balaji Hospital, Kompally, via ambulance. Upon

inquiry, it was confirmed by the ambulance staff and hospital

staff that the pedestrian suffered severe head injuries.

Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered case

against the petitioner in Crime No.717 of 2020 for the offence

punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and after completion

of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.904 of

2020, before the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-

cum-IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal,

Cyberabad Commissionerate.

3. Heard Sri Kandhula Ankama Rao, learned counsel for

petitioner, and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, appearing for respondent No.1-State. In spite of

service of notice, none appeared on behalf respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no prior convictions

and on 03.10.2020 at about 7:45 pm he was driving home

from work on NH44 via Medchal, within the speed limit of

40-45 km/hr and all of a sudden an unknown person

SKS,J

crossed the road without warning or hand sign which

resulted in colliding with the car of petitioner. He asserted

that the petitioner being responsible citizen had immediately

stopped his vehicle and attended to the victim, called an

ambulance, and admitted the victim to Balaji Hospital and

even paid the bills. Despite the responsible actions of the

petitioner, an FIR was registered under Section 337 IPC, later

updated to Section 304A after the death of the victim.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner incessantly submitted

that the charges framed against the petitioner are false,

motivated, and vexatious, emphasizing the lack of zebra

crossings, signals, or streetlights in the area. He lamented

that the speed of car driven by petitioner was within the limit

and that he even took care of the medical expenses of the

victim which would clearly certify his character and conduct

as a citizen. Therefore, he prayed the Court to quash the

proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner stating that the allegations leveled

SKS,J

against the petitioner are serious in nature, which require

trial. Therefore, at this stage, quashing of proceedings

against the petitioner does not arise. Hence, he prayed the

Court to dismiss the Criminal Petition.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on

going through the material placed on record, it is noted that

the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section

304A of IPC and the only contention of learned counsel for

the petitioner is that there was no negligence or ignorance on

the part of the petitioner which resulted in death of the victim

and that it was the victim himself who attempted to cross the

road all of sudden which resulted in his collusion with the

car driven by the petitioner, and unlike other cases, instead

of running away from the place of accident, the petitioner

had immediately stopped his car and made arrangements to

call the ambulance, shift him to hospital for treatment and

also paid the medical expenses, whereas, it is the specific

stand of the prosecution that proceedings against the

petitioner cannot be quashed at this stage as there are

serious allegations against him which require trial.

SKS,J

8. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of

Investigation Vs. Aryan Singh 1, whereunder, in paragraph

No.10 it was categorically held as under:

"10. From the impugned common judgment

and order passed by the High Court, it

appears that the High Court has dealt with

the proceedings before it, as if, the High

Court was conducting a mini trial and/or

the High Court was considering the

applications against the judgment and order

passed by the learned Trial Court on

conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal

principle of law, at the stage of discharge

and/or quashing of the criminal

proceedings, while exercising the powers

under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not

required to conduct the mini trial. The High

Court in the common impugned judgment

and order has observed that the charges

against the accused are not proved. This is

not the stage where the

2023 SCC OnLine SC 379

SKS,J

prosecution/investigating agency is/are

required to prove the charges. The charges

are required to be proved during the trial on

the basis of the evidence led by the

prosecution/investigating agency. Therefore,

the High Court has materially erred in going

in detail in the allegations and the material

collected during the course of the

investigation against the accused, at this

stage. At the stage of discharge and/or

while exercising the powers under

Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court has a very

limited jurisdiction and is required to

consider "whether any sufficient material is

available to proceed further against the

accused for which the accused is required to

be tried or not."

9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 2, observed

as under:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function

(2012) 10 SCC 155

SKS,J

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 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."