IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, J.
Tularam Bhatpahri, S/o Late Latel Ram Bhatpahri – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Cr.M.P.No.93 of 2016
Decided on : 08-09-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A, 34 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 66 & 192 - Quash FIR - Rash driving or riding on a public way - Causing death by negligence - Prayed that Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow petition and FIR registered at Police Station may kindly be quashed – Held, There is no evidence on record which goes to show that teachers were negligent in driving vehicle or in other words, due to negligence on part of teachers, tractor and trolley turned turtle and students have received injuries - Considering statements made by students in which they have stated that they were going to temple and driver of offending vehicle was driving vehicle negligently and due to his negligent driving, tractor and trolley turned turtle and students have received injuries, further considering that driver who was driving offending vehicle on date of incident has been tried separately and also considering principle of law laid down by Supreme Court in Sushil Ansal (supra), Court is of view that petitioners have made out a case for interference in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC – FIR and entire criminal prosecution/ proceedings are hereby quashed - Petition allowed.
ORDER :
1. Heard Mr.Manoj Paranjape and Mr.Shreyansh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Avinash Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
2. By way of this petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs:-
“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition and the FIR bearing Crime No.173/2015, registered at Police Station Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband and the entire criminal prosecution/proceedings bearing Criminal Case No.762/2015, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajim, Gariyaband, may kindly be quashed, in the interest of justice.”
3. Petitioner No.1-Tularam Bhatpahri is holding the substantive post of In-charge Headmaster and is posted at Middle School, Rachkatti, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Gariyaband. Petitioner No.2-Ajay Kumar Yadav is holding the substantive post of Teacher Panchayat and is posted at Middle School Rachkatti, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Gariyaband and petitioner No.3-Faneshwar Kumar Sahu is holding the substantive post of Teacher Panchayat and is posted at Middle School Rachkatti, Tahsil Gariyaband, District Gariyaband. The instant petition has been filed only on behalf of the teachers.
4. Undisputed facts of the case are that on 17.10.2015 (Saturday) 72 students of Middle School, Rachkatii, Fingeshwar, Gariyaband were sent by the School Management for Devi Darshan to Rupayee Temple, which is 4 kilometers away from the school. The teachers and the students were seating in the trolley. The tractor and trolley was hired by the School Management. Even the children of the owner of the tractor and trolley were also seating in the trolley. The owner of the tractor and trolley bearing No. CG-04 MK 5789 was driving the tractor. As per the case of the prosecution, the driver was plying the tractor and trolley negligently and due to his negligent driving, tractor and trolley turned turtle and the students who were travelling in the tractor and trolley have received certain injuries and Kumari Khushi Sahu, Punni Dhruv, Bharti Netam, Girja Shankar Sahu and Khageshwar Yadav received grievous injuries and died on the spot, whereas Omprakash, Rekhraj, Chetan, Pooja, Minakshi, Urvashi, Laxmi, Ishwar, Komal, Khumeshwar have received injuries. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Manish Kumar Banjare. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 66 & 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was alleged that the petitioners being teachers of the school have failed to discharge their duties and have committed negligence and they are responsible for death and as such, they have committed offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 66 & 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. The police has recorded the statements of the students. It is apparent from the statements of the students that they were going to temple and the driver of the offending vehicle namely Bedram was driving the vehicle negligently and due to the negligent driving, tractor and trolley turned turtle and they have received injuries.
6. Mr.Manoj Paranjape, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the entire case charge-sheet is accepted, offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 66 & 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act would not be made out against the petitioners. The reading of Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A of the IPC and Sections 66 & 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act would be manifest that the essential ingredients of offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 & 304-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 66 & 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act are completely missing. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 304-A of the IPC are that there should be a death, caused by rash and negligent act and it shall n
Kurban Hussein Mohamedali Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra
Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others
Sushil Ansal v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation
SupremeToday
A direct nexus between the accused's negligent act and the death must be established for liability under Section 304-A IPC.
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....
The commission of a 'rash and/or negligent act' is a necessary ingredient for the offences punishable under Sections 279/304A IPC. The court emphasized the importance of establishing gross negligence....
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.
Point of Law : High Court may exercise the powers under Section 226 of Constitution or the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of Court or otherwise to secure the....
Liability for negligence in criminal cases requires clear evidence of gross negligence; merely failing to take additional precautions beyond established protocols is insufficient for criminal charges....
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or incitement by the accused, which was not present in this case.
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.