HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Mohemad Hanif Abdulsatar Teliya – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT (CAV)
Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today.
2. By way of present petition under Articles 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:—
“(b) To quash and set aside the impugned FIR being CR No.11198001230318 of 2023 dated 11.06.2023 registered with Neelambaug Police Station, Bhavnagar, Charge-sheet dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure-A) and Sessions Case No.107 of 2023 pending before the learned 5th Additional District Judge, Bhavnagar and any subsequent proceedings arising thereto;”
3. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner is as under:
3.1 Present petitioner is the father of juvenile. It is the case of the petitioner that on 11.06.2023 at around 6.30 a.m., the complainant was informed by his friend that his father met with an accident while he was driving his Activa and one Maruti Swift Car No.GJ-04-CA-6433 dashed with the Activa and dead body of the deceased father of complainant was lying near the front tyre of the said
In criminal offence, generally, no one can be held responsible for an offence committed by other except in case of criminal conspiracy or abetment.
A guardian's liability under the Motor Vehicles Act is contingent on the commission of an offense by a juvenile, necessitating proof of both the offense and the juvenile's age.
Guardian of a juvenile can be proceeded against only if a juvenile has committed the offense under Motor Vehicles Act.
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....
Negligence in criminal law requires a culpable mental state; mere occurrence of an accident without proof of rashness does not constitute a criminal offence.
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.
Negligent driving resulting in death is a criminal offense which, if substantiated by eyewitness testimonies and medical reports, warrants conviction despite defense claims regarding identification a....
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.