JUDGMENT :

PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, J.

1. Applicant has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 13.9.2023 passed in Criminal Case No. 144/2022 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur framed charges under 304, 308 of IPC against him.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.3.2022 at about 10:30 p.m. applicant drove his car rashly and negligently in drunken state and badly dashed one Laxmikant Dohre, a pushcart seller, complainant Shivam Goswami and two others. As a result said Laxmikant Dohre suffered grievous injuries, whereas complainant suffered injury on his right forearm. Said Laxmikant Dohre was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Raipur where he was declared dead by the doctor. Incident was reported in the concerned police station based upon which Crime bearing No. 115/2022 was registered against the applicant. After completion of investigation, police filed challan for the aforementioned offences. The Court below after hearing both the parties, framed charges against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 304 & 308 of IPC on the ground that one person died and three others sustained grievous injury due to dangerous and negligent act of applicant i.e. driving the vehicle in high speed after consuming liquor.

3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that from the material available in charge sheet, it cannot be said that the applicant knowingly or intentionally committed the offence because the incident which had taken place was a pure road accident and was not a deliberate act of applicant so as to attract framing of charges against the applicant for the offence under Sections 304 & 308 of IPC. He submits that the offence, if any, will fall under Section 304A of IPC and at best, the applicant can be attributed for rash and negligent driving of vehicle. The Court below has committed grave error by framing charges under Sections 304 & 308 of IPC. Hence, the order framing charges under Sections 304 & 308 of IPC against applicant be quashed and he be discharged from said charges. In support of his submissions, he places reliance on the decisions in case of State of Gujarat vs. Haider Ali Kalu Bhai, 1976 (1) SCC 889, Mahadev Prasad Kaushik vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 14 SCC 479 and State through PS Lodhi Colony vs. Sanjeev Nanda, (2010) 9 SCC 368.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for applicant, would submit that applicant drove the vehicle in drunken condition in such a manner by which it can be easily inferred that he was having the knowledge that his act would result into death or bodily injury to innocent people on road. He submits that the facts, as revealed, would justify framing of charge under Sections 304 of IPC as the applicant has acted in a manner that he can be attributed with the knowledge to cause death revealing an offence under Section 304 IPC. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial Court framing charges under Section 304 & 308 IPC against applicant does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed along with revision petition.

6. In case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles to be borne in mind for proper exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, particularly in the context of quashing of charge. The principles in Amit Kapoor’s case (supra) were recently quoted with approval in case of Manendra Prasad Tiwari vs. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Another, 2022 SCC Online SC 1057. One of the principles on which revisional jurisdiction can be exercised is that if the allegations are patently so absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a c