Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S. OKA, ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
R. KRISHNA GANGA RAJU - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1294 of 2016
Decided On : 17-04-2017
For the Petitioner:Victor Chettiar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K.V. Saste, APP.
The court emphasized the need for evidence to establish rash and negligent driving and highlighted the principles for exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
Quashing - Offence under Section 304A of IPC - Section 279, 338 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code - Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure - R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi 2013 (1) Supreme 493
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and chargesheet for offences under Section 279, 338, and 304 of the Indian Penal Code, claiming that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving. The court analyzed the evidence and the legal provisions invoked against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no material to indicate rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, and the charge sheet did not disclose essential ingredients of the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged rash and negligent driving by the petitioner, the impact of the statements of witnesses, and the legal provisions invoked against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be quashed on the ground of compromise or settlement, and the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised sparingly and in consonance with settled principles of law to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure ends of justice.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the FIR and chargesheet were quashed and set aside.
Anuja Prabhudessai, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties taken for hearing.
2. This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the FIR No. 87 of 2015 registered with Mahim Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. At the outset it may be mentioned here that the Petitioner herein has relied upon the affidavits of Cline Sinclair Valadares, and Clint Sinclair Valadares, sons of the deceased Sinclair Valadares. stating that the accident was caused as their father had turned back on seeking a heavy vehicle coming towards him and in the process dashed against the motor cycle driven by the Petitioner. They have stated that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving by the petitioner. They have given their no objection for quashing the chargesheet.
4. It is to be noted that the offence under Section 304A of IPC presents a situation where a victim has lost his life due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. The offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code is not an offence which is private in nature, but is an offence which has serious impact on the society as whole. Hence, the offence of such nature cannot be quashed on the ground that the legal representatives of the deceased have entered into a settlement or compromise or that they have given no objection for quashing. In our view, quashing such chargesheet for offence under Section 304A of Indian Penal Code on the ground of compromise or settlement would militate against all cannons of law. Hence we decline to quash the chargesheet on the ground of settlement.
5. In this case, the quashing of the proceeding is sought on merits as well. It may however be mentioned here that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are wide and can be exercised to quash the complaint/FIR/chargesheet or the proceedings on merits despite rejection of the prayer of quashing on the ground of settlement or compromise. Needless to state that these powers have to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in consonance with settled principles of law in order to prevent abuse of process of law or to secure ends of justice. The principles relating to quashing of FIR/complaint, charge sheet and proceedings have been stated and reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. To state a few in R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi 2013 (1) Supreme 493.
6. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that on 21st March, 2015 at about 17.30 hours the petitioner herein drove his Royal Enfield (Bullet) Motor Cycle No. MH-01-BL-5453 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against one Mr. Sinclair Samuel Valladares. It is alleged that said Sinclair Valladares expired as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The Petitioner is therefore prosecuted for driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby causing the death of Mr. Sinclair Samuel Valladares.
7. Mr. Chettiar, the learned Counsel for Petitioner has submitted that there is absolutely no material on record to indicate that the Petitioner had driven the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, or that the death of Sinclair Samuel Valladares was caused due to rash and negligent act of the Petitioner. He therefore submits that continuation of the proceedings against the Petitioner would be sheer abuse of the process of law.
8. We have perused the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the other documents, which form part of the charge-sheet.
9. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be advantageous to refer to the penal provisions invoked against the Petitioner. Section 279 reads as under :
279. Rash driving or riding o
