JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. K. Angami, learned PP for the State.

2. This is an application under section 482 CrPC for quashing and setting aside the FIR dated 13.03.2015 in GR No. 17/2015 corresponding to Wokha P.S. Case No. 12/15 under sections 279/336/337/338/304 (A) IPC, read with 185 M.V. Act which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaland.

3. Facts leading to the institution of the present petition is that on 12.0.2015 at about 10:30 am one Maruti Alto vehicle met with an accident between Longsa and Santasuphen. And the vehicle rolled down about 300 ft approximately from the highway with 4 occupants which included the petitioner who was the driver of the said vehicle. One of the occupants, Mr. Kivikhu Swu expired due to head injury at Motso Memorial Hospital, the petitioner and Mr. Khumtsa Awomi both sustained grievous injury while Mr. Vikugha Assumi sustained simple injury. On receiving information of the accident a Suo moto report was made and an FIR was registered at Wokha P.S as Case No. 12/2015 on 13.03.2015 under 279/36/37/38/304(A) R/W 185 MV Act. The case was investigated into and during investigation one bottle full MC rum, 3 quarter bottle Vodka and 1 quarter MC Rum was recovered from the vehicle. The medical examination of the petitioner showed that the petitioner had consumed liquor and MVI report was that the vehicle was driven at a comparatively high speed and accordingly the charge-sheet under 279/36/37/38/304(A) R/W 185 MV Act was submitted against the accused petitioner, hence this petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner himself is a victim in the case, since he himself had sustained injuries along with the other passengers namely Khuntsa Awomi and Vikugha Assumi in the accident on 12.03.2013 where unfortunately, one of the passengers namely late Kivikhu Swu had died due to the injuries sustained. He submits that on perusal of the charge sheet it is clear that there is no element of rash or negligent driving since the Inspection report states that “Upon inspection of the vehicle and the accident site it may be ascertained that the accident occurred due to locking of the brakes. Locking of the brakes occur when hard steady pressure is applied on the brake pedal and when this happens the vehicle may change direction sharply either to the left or to the right and the rear tires may also swing back and forth causing the driver to lose control of the steering. In this case the driver, thinking the road to be straight and driving at the moderately high speed but unaware of the slight bent towards the right before the accident he may have suddenly applied hard pressure on the pedal while negotiating the bent causing the brakes to lock. As a result, the driver lost control of the vehicle and fell off the road”. No where does the report mention anything of rash or negligent driving.

5. The learned counsel further submits that though the accused/petitioner is alleged to have consumed alcohol, the nature of the report does not show the quantity of the alcohol consumed. Under Section 185 of the MV Act the limit prescribed is that there should be at least 30 mg alcohol per 100 ml of blood detected by breath analyzer. There was also no breath analyzer test or blood test done on the accused and no proper procedure was followed. He further submits that there is no proof of rash or negligent driving since there was no witness except one of the passengers (P.W.-2) cited in the charge-sheet who has not mentioned that the petitioner was driving in a rash or negligent manner in his statement recorded by the case I.O. The learned counsel has also mentioned that the news paper report annexed in the petition show that the road condition where the accident occurred is very bad and due to this many accidents and deaths have occurred at that stretch of road.

6. The learned