The prosecution must provide credible evidence of rash and negligent driving to sustain charges under IPC sections; mere circumstantial evidence is insufficient for accountability.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP SHARMA, J.

1. By way of instant petition, prayer has been made by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No. 129 of 2020 dated 24.8.2020, under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, registered with Police Station Jawali, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending before the learned trial Court below.

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Janak Raj and Mr. Abhinav Mehta, Advocates, is that there is no evidence suggestive of the fact that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioners and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for the investigating agency to lodge FIR against the petitioners under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. While making this Court peruse FIR as well as final report filed under 173 CrPC, above named counsel vehemently argued that the alleged incident came to notice of the police on the basis of information furnished by Medical Officer, CHC Nagrota, before whom petitioners were brought for treatment. They state that at the time of spot inspection, no person came forward to depose that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioners, rather police after having examined motor cycle allegedly lying on the spot, proceeded to conclude that accident occurred on account of negligence of both the petitioners. They stated that since there is no eye witness to the accident and both the petitioners involved in the accident have been made accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, there is no likelihood of succeeding the trial, rather continuation of criminal proceedings, if any, pursuant to FIR sought to be quashed would be abuse of process of law and as such, this Court while exercising power under Section 528 of BNSS can proceed to quash the FIR.

3. Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, while fairly admitting that no independent witnesses ever came to be associated by the investigating agency to establish rash and negligent driving of the petitioners, stated that since factum of accident is not in dispute and at the relevant time, motor cycle involved in the accident was being driven by the petitioners, no illegality or infirmity can be said to have been committed by the investigating agency while registering case under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC against both the accused. While referring to the evidence adduced on record, learned Deputy Advocate General, stated that there is overwhelming evidence suggestive of the fact that in the alleged accident, both the petitioners suffered serious injuries, which is sufficient to connect them with the alleged offence and as such, they rightly came to be booked under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, this Court finds that SHO after having received telephonic call from the Medical Officer CHC Nagrota that two persons have been brought for treatment on account of injuries suffered in the accident, reached the hospital and attempted to record the statement of petitioners, but since they were declared unfit by the doctor, Investigating Officer reached the spot of accident and on the basis of circumstantial evidence proceeded to lodge FIR against both the petitioners under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC.

5. After completion of investigation, police presented challan in the competent court of law, but before charge, if any could be fr