Telangana High Court
Bandigari Krishna Swamy vs State Of Telangana on 21 October, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9773 OF 2024
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.2 in C.C.No.1662
of 2023 the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet District, registered for
the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sections 180, 181 and 196 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent
No.2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint against the
petitioner and other accused stating that on 14.12.2022 his
brother-in-law and friend were traveling from Hyderabad to
Siddipet on a bike. Accused No.1-rider lost control, and they fell.
The brother-in-law, who was the pillion rider, was thrown onto the
other side of the road divider and fatally hit by an oncoming lorry.
Accused No. 1 suffered leg fractures. It is further stated that
accused No.1 was not shown any suspicious into the death of the
deceased. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered a
SKS,J
case in Crime No.396 of 2022 for the offences punishable under
Section 304(A) of IPC and Sections 180, 181 and 196 of the Act.
After completion of investigation, the Police filed charge sheet,
vide C.C.No.1662 of 2023 before the learned Principal Junior Civil
Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet District.
3. Heard Sri Papaiah Peddakula, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri E. Ganesh, learned Assistant
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
vehicle was registered in the name of the petitioner but the same
was driven by Accused No.1 and without concrete evidence of
permission, the violation of the Motor Vehicle Act cannot be
attributed to the petitioner. He further submitted that the
petitioner sold the vehicle to Max Motors and purchased another
in the name of his son and that there is no concrete evidence to
prove that the owner permitted accused No. 1 to drive the subject
vehicle. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner
are vague and baseless and prayed the Court to quash the
proceedings against the petitioner.
SKS,J
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the allegations leveled against the petitioner require
trial. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and the
material placed on record, it is noted that it is the specific
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that on the date of
incident the petitioner was not the registered owner of the subject
vehicle and that by the date of incident, he had already purchased
a new vehicle in exchange of the subject vehicle and handed over
the same to Max Motors. It is further contended that documents
pertaining to purchase of new vehicle are also filed as token of
evidence.
7. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that to quash the
proceedings under Section 528 of BNSS, the Court has to see
whether the averments in the complaint prima facie shows that it
constitute the offence against the accused persons, as alleged by
the Police. That being so, it is imperative 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:
(2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155
SKS,J
"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
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. Reverting to the facts of the case on hand, perusal of the
record would show that though the stand of petitioner is that he is
not the owner of the subject vehicle as on the date of incident as
he purchased a new vehicle in exchange of the subject vehicle, it
is noticed that he was the registered owner of the subject vehicle
as on the date of incident. Though it is contended by learned
counsel for the petitioner that documents to show that the
petitioner had purchased new vehicle are filed, this Court is of the
SKS,J
opinion that the matter requires trial on the cogent evidence that
would be adduced by the parties.
9. In view of the above discussion and having regard to the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya
Pradesh (supra), this Court is of the firm view that the matter
requires full-fledged trial. There are no merits in the criminal
petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused
No.2 and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:21.10.2024
PT
