Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Manasvi Vashistha – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case and fir details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding lack of proof for charged offences. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal principles defining rashness, negligence, and mischief. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. observations on the circumstances of the accident. (Para 14) |
| 5. final order to quash the fir and proceedings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR No. 103/2018 registered under Sections 279 /427 IPC at P.S. IP Estate, Delhi and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, including the order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, Central, Delhi in Criminal Case No. 11187/2019, vide which charges under Sections 279 /427 IPC have been framed against the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated, the facts involved in the case are that on 12.05.2018 an information was received in the concerned Police Station about an accident having resulted in damage to public property. During investigation, one Arif Khan of Raj Ghat Power House Controller Room informed that a Maruti Baleno car bea
The prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of rashness or negligence for IPC Section 279, and the intent for mischief under Section 427; mere accident does not suffice.
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....
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 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.
Rash driving or riding on a public way – There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In absence of any material on record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be ....
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was driving in a 'rash and negligent' manner; mere high speed does not suffice to establish guilt under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
