IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V. SUJATHA, J.
D. Chandra Sekher Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 11799 of 2018
Decided On : 30-07-2024
Quash - Criminal Proceedings - Cr.P.C. Section 482, IPC Section 304-A, Motor Vehicles Act Sections 134, 187 - The court interpreted the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings when no direct nexus between the accused's actions and the alleged crime was established, emphasizing the necessity of proving negligence directly linked to the death.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash proceedings for alleged negligence leading to a fatal accident involving the deceased, arguing lack of direct involvement and responsibility in the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a direct nexus between the petitioner's actions and the death, leading to the conclusion that the charges were without substance.
Issues: Whether there are justifiable grounds to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for quashing proceedings, it must be shown that the allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, particularly emphasizing the need for a direct causal link between the accused's actions and the death.
Result: The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.
ORDER :
V. Sujatha, J.
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short Cr.P.C], seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1423 of 2018 dated 03.04.2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool District, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A of I.P.C., 134 (a) (b) r/w 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short M.V. Act.], wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 07.10.2017 at 3.30 p.m. on NH-40 road (Nandyal to Kurnool lane) opposite to Sree Bugga Rameswara Swami Temple main gate, Kalva Bugga, Orvakal Mandal, the deceased one Boya Ramudu, aged about 75 years, who is father of the 3rd respondent i.e., L.W.1/defacto complainant was while crossing the road for beedies, one Car bearing registration No.AP 21 AU 3269 came in a rash and negligent manner from Nandyal side, without blowing horn, hit the deceased and proceeded without stopping there. On that the deceased has received bleeding injuries on his head, legs and hands, immediately the 3rd respondent shifted his father to Government General Hospital, Kurnool by TATA ACE trolley vehicle and got him admitted for treatment. The case of the prosecution is that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver, negligence on behalf of the National Highway Authority Road No.42 and KMC Constructions Authorities. On 07.10.2017 basing on the report of the 3rd respondent herein, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.220 of 2017 under Section 338 IPC, 134(a) and (b) r/w 187 of M.V. Act of Orvakal Police Station against the car driver, the National Highway Authority Road No.42 and KMC Constructions Authorities. On 08.10.2017 at 21.25hrs while he was undergoing treatment, the deceased died. After receipt of death intimation of the deceased the Section was altered under Section 304-A IPC from 338 IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed Charge Sheet against the accused 1 to 3 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.1423 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool District, Kurnool, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 304-A of I.P.C., 134(a) (b) r/w 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. The allegation against the petitioner herein is that as the National Highway No.40 Authorities are negligent in providing road dividers properly in the middle of the road i.e. at the place of offence, the defacto complainant lost his father in the said accident.
4. Heard Mrs. Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Though notice served on the 3rd respondent, none appeared. Perused the material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is a Project Director of the Project Implementation Unit, National Highways authority of India, Nandyal and the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 in the above Calendar Case. The petitioner’s office is only a Project Implementation unit and the petitioner is a Project Director, which is a part and parcel of the National Highways Authority of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. The National Highways are meticulously planned by high qualified engineers taking into its consideration not only safety issues but also all other connected issues, so as to provide a fast, safe, hassle free travel and the authorities have provided sub-roads crossing points etc. for convenience of the commuters who wish to cross the road at suitable places based on the requirement but several people to save time or avoid distance, choose the risk of crossing of the road at unstrategic, undesignated and dangerous places on the road and suddenly come across thigh speed vehicles, risking not only their own lives but also others, which has evidently happened in the
A direct nexus between the accused's negligent act and the death must be established for liability under Section 304-A IPC.
A direct nexus between the accused's negligent act and the death is essential for liability under Section 304-A IPC.
Criminal liability under Section 304A IPC requires clear evidence linking negligence directly to the cause of death.
Negligence and rashness must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC; mere involvement in an accident does not equate to guilt.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence of rash and negligent driving to sustain charges under IPC sections; mere circumstantial evidence is insufficient for accountability.
Criminal liability under IPC for negligence requires direct causation and gross negligence must be established; absence of presence at the incident absolves the petitioner of responsibility.
A driver cannot be held criminally liable for an accident caused by an unforeseen event without evidence of negligent or rash conduct. The absence of mens rea precludes criminal liability under IPC s....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.