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.

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 bearing No. DL 1 CR-XXXX (hereinafter, referred to as `the offending vehicle') had rammed into the Himadri entry gate. It was further informed that the sliding gate was found in broken condition and at some distance, the offending vehicle was also found in accidental condition. No injury was caused to any person and only the gate had been damaged. At the time of the incident, one CT/GD Gurwaiya had visited the site of accident and spotted the petitioner, who apparently appeared to be under the influence of alcohol. A written complaint was given by Insp. Sanjeev Kumar, Company Commander, Rajghat Power House, wherein it was stated that he was informed of the incident by HC Arif Khan. In pursuance of the complaint, the petitioner was arrested on the same day, i.e., on 12.05.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that from the material collected and placed on the record along with the charge sheet, the ingredients of the charged offences are not satisfied. It is submitted that offence under Section 279 IPC is not made out against the petitioner as it has not been stated anywhere that he was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.

Learned counsel further submitted that the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC is also not made out against the petitioner, as he is not alleged to have committed any mischief with the intention to cause loss or damage. In support of her contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Nauratan Mal, reported as 2001 SCC OnLine Raj 291.

Lastly, it has been contended that although quashing of FIR is sought on merits, the petitioner, without prejudice to his rights and contentions, is ready and willing to tender an unconditional apology to IPGCL as well as compensate for any damage caused to its property.

4. Learned APP for the State has submitted that as per the allegations in the FIR, CT/GD Gurwaiya had reached the spot of incident and found the Himadri gate as well as the offending vehicle in a damaged condition. Further, the petitioner was seen stepping out of the offending vehicle and he reportedly appeared to be under the influence of alcohol.

5. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.

6. In order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, the following ingredients must be made out:

(i) there must be rash or negligent driving or riding;

(ii) it must be on a public way; and

(iii) the driving or riding must be in a manner so rash or negligent so as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person other than the driver.

7. Likewise, to constitute an offe