A minor below 12 years is generally not liable for criminal offences under Section 83; consequently, FIR details must enable the formation of a prima facie case for the court to permit prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.

The present quashing petition preferred to quash the Gardanibagh (Patna) P.S. Case No. 118/2021 dated 22.03.2021, lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The aforesaid FIR was lodged on the basis of written report of the informant/opposite party no. 2, namely Shankar Kumar @ Shankar Kumar Ram.

2. The brief case of prosecution, as it appears from the written report of the informant/opposite party no. 2 made before Gardanibagh Police Station on 22.03.2021 that on 20.03.2021 at about 6:00 PM his son, namely, Shivam Kumar while going to purchase some goods from a nearby shop, the son of petitioner no. 2 namely, Naman Kumar, who is aged about 14 years has dashed him with his scooty, where petitioner no. 2 was sitting as a pillion rider. It is alleged that after the said occurrence, both father and son together assaulted the son of the informant/opposite party no. 2 badly. It is also alleged that both petitioners usually assault the children of the locality, while playing. It is submitted that petitioner no. 2 created a havoc in society being an advocate of the Patna High Court. It is stated that the son of opposite party no. 2 during his treatment succumbed to his injuries and, as such, it was requested to take strict action against both petitioners, if possible to hang both of them.

3. Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Ansul, learned Senior Counsel while arguing on behalf of petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution story maliciously hatched up by anti social element of the locality who are in inimical terms with petitioner no. 2. It is submitted that the opposite party no. 2 as feeling difficulty in trade of illicit and spurious liquor, named petitioner no. 2 who is a sincere and a regular practitioner of this Court since 2002 and presently he is Special Public Prosecutor (SC/ST) in Patna High Court, whereas petitioner no. 1 is his minor son. In this context, it is submitted that alleged occurrence took place on 20.03.2021 at about 6:10 PM but the information to the police has been given on 22.03.2021 after two days when son of opposite party no. 2 died during treatment. It is pointed out that while playing together, the son of opposite party no. 2 entered into scufÒe with other childrens playing there including the son of opposite party no. 2, where he fell to the ground and received bodily injuries to which he succumbed during treatment in hospital but as an afterthought to get claim under the Motor Vehicle Act, the occurrence which took place amongst the children, was given colour of an intentional hitting by scooty for which present FIR was lodged under Section 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

4. It is submitted by Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel that if the version of FIR be taken on its face then it can be said safely that by using scooty the son of opposite party no. 2 was dashed, therefore, it was not even the accident, rather it was something which made intentional but police registered a case under Section 304A of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . It is pointed out that the informant/opposite party no. 2 projected himself as an eyewitness of the occurrence but he could not pointed out the registration number of the scooty. This is not a case of the informant that the scooty registration plate was not available, or after hitting with scooty, petitioners ran away, which in itself make the case of opposite party no. 2/prosecution doubtful.

5. Mr. P.N. Shahi, learned senior counsel arguing further submitted that the son of opposite party no. 2 died during his treatment out of “Septicemia” a