Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA
Ram Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of petition to quash fir. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments regarding lack of evidence. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. court's analysis of investigative proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 5. determination of liability in absent of evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. lack of evidence to support charges of negligence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 7. court's decision to quash the fir. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
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 prosecution must provide credible evidence of rash and negligent driving to sustain charges under IPC sections; mere circumstantial evidence is insufficient for accountability.
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 in criminal law requires a culpable mental state; mere occurrence of an accident without proof of rashness does not constitute a criminal offence.
High Court quashed non-compoundable FIR for rash driving causing death under Section 482 CrPC on voluntary compromise by complainant/legal heirs, as offences not heinous, conviction remote, serving e....
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.
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
