IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
SANJEEB K.PANIGRAHI, J.
Rahul Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Ors. - Opposite Parties
CRLMC No. 4839 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments against cognizance. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis of criminal liability. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. assessment of negligence and evidence. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. conclusion to quash criminal proceedings. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner has instituted the present Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashing of the FIR and the Criminal Proceedings arising out of Khandagiri P.S. Case No.41/2016, corresponding to C.T. Case No.403 of 2016, pending before the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar, in connection with the alleged commission of offences under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) On 20.01.2016, at night, on friendly request of one Rahul Sharma, the deceased Debasish Mohanty, along with some of his friends, proceeded on a pleasure trip within Bhubaneswar in a Honda City Car bearing Registration No. OD-02AA-0808. The said vehicle was a private vehicle and not a hired one.
(ii) The vehicle bearing Registration No. OD-02AA-0808 (Honda City Car) was duly insured with the M/S Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd under Policy No. HBA/00357887, which was valid from 08.01.2015 to 07.12.2016. Thus, on the date of the accident, the said vehicle was covered by a valid and subsisting insurance policy. Further, on the date of incident, the Petitioner was holding a valid and effective driving license.
(iii) While returning to their respective homes, a cow suddenly came in front of the said vehicle, as a result of which the Petitioner, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, lost control over the same and the accident occurred. The deceased, who was seated in the front passenger seat, along with the Petitioner, sustained injuries in the said accident. Consequently, the vehicle capsized near the spot in the vicinity of SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar and met with a serious accident.
(iv) Due to the said accident, Debasish Mohanty sustained grievous injuries to his head, along with other injuries on different parts of his body. Immediately after the occurrence, he was rescued by the local persons present at the spot and was taken to SUM Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where he was provided treatment for a short duration.
(v) In view of his critical condition, Debasish Mohanty was shifted to AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar for better treatment, where he was treated as an indoor patient from 21.01.2016 to 22.01.2016 and remained in an unconscious condition. Despite the sincere efforts of the attending of physicians, he succumbed to his injuries on 22.01.2016 at AMRI Hospital, Bhubaneswar.
(vi) Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was taken to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by the attending doctor of the said hospital. Upon completion of the autopsy, the dead body was handed over to his relatives for performance of the last rites and funeral rituals.
(vii) Subsequent to the said accident, a claim application bearing MAC No. 536 of 2016 was filed by the father of the deceased before the Court of the 3rd Addl. District Judge-cum-5th Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Balasore. By order dated 29.03.2023, the learned Tribunal was pleased to award compensation in favour of the bereaved family of the deceased, which was directed to be paid in terms of the said order.
(viii) Thereafter, cognizance of the offences was taken by the SDJM, Bhubaneswar, on 20.05.2022 in connection with Khandagiri P.S.
Case No. 41 of 2016, corresponding to C.T. Case No. 403 of 2016, under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to
AI
Negligence in criminal law requires a culpable mental state; mere occurrence of an accident without proof of rashness does not constitute a criminal offence.
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.
The prosecution must provide credible evidence of rash and negligent driving to sustain charges under IPC sections; mere circumstantial evidence is insufficient for accountability.
Conviction for negligent driving requires substantial evidence beyond mere speed; a driver cannot be held liable under IPC without evidence proving rashness and negligence distinctly.
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.