Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 545
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Atul Sreedharan, J.
Arun Kapur v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.10350 of 2006 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 29.9.2016.
S.K. Gangrade for petitioner;
D.K. Paroha, Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1;
None for respondent No.2.
Headnote:Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.482 and 161 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.279, 337, 338 and 304A -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss.180, 181, 3 and 4 -- petition for quashing criminal proceedings -- witnesses whose statement recorded also suggest that respondent No.2 driving vehicle and caused accident -- State failed to show that petitioner was either owner of vehicle or he was incharge of that at time of accident or later -- Director or any person involved in affairs of company can only be proceeded against if company itself is made an accused -- petitioner not named in FIR and neither there be any imputation against him -- petitioner arrayed as an accused by police after completion of investigation and not by complainant -- charge-sheet quashed or relates to petitioner -- petition disposed of.
Held : The Director or any person involved in the affairs of the company can only be proceeded against if the company itself is made an accused. It is also undisputed that the company has not been made an accused in this case .... In the instant case also the company has not been made an accused, so therefore, on that ground also, besides the merits of the case, the case against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
The petitioner has not been named in the FIR and neither has there be any imputation against him for being involved in the offence which has been committed by the respondent No.2. [Paras 9 & 10
naM+ izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482 rFkk 161 && naM+ lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 279] 337] 338] 304d && eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 180] 181] 3 rFkk 4 && nkafM+d dk;Zokfg;kW vfHk[kafM+r djkus gsrq ;kfpdk && lk{khx.k ftudk dFku vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k lq>krs gS fd izR;FkhZ Ø-2 ;ku pyk jgk Fkk rFkk ?kVuk dkfjr dh && jkT; ;g n'kkZus esa vlQy jgk fd ;kph ?kVuk ds le; ;k i'pkr~ ;ku dk Lokeh Fkk ;k mldk izHkkjh Fkk && funs'kd ;k daiuh ds dk;Zdykiksa esa varxzZLr fdlh Hkh O;fDr ds foL) dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gS ;fn daiuh Lo;a dks vfHk;qDr cuk;k tkrk gS && ;kph dk izFke bfŸkyk fjiksVZ esa uke ugha fn;k x;k RkFkk uk gh mlds fo:) dksbZ vH;kjksi.k fd;k x;k gS && iqfyl }kjk tkWp iw.kZ djus ds i'pkr~ lwph esa ;kph dk uke vfHk;qDr ds :i esa fy[kk x;k gS rFkk ifjoknh }kjk ugha && ;kph ls lacf/kr vfHk;ksx&i= vfHk[kafMr && ;kfpdk dk fujkd`rA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % funs'kd ;k daiuh ds dk;Zdykiksa esa vraxzZLr fdlh Hkh O;fDr ds fo:) dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gS ;fn daiuh Lo;a dk vfHk;qDr cuk;k tkrk gSA ;g Hkh vfookfnr gS fd daiuh dks bl ekeys esa vfHk;qDr ugha cuk;k x;k gSA ------- bl ekeys esa Hkh daiuh dks vfHk;qDr ugha cuk;k x;k gS blfy, bl vk/kkj ij Hkh ekeys ds xq.kkxq.k ds vykok ;kph ds fo:) ekeyk vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ;ksX; gSA
;kph dk izFke bfŸkyk fjiksVZ esa uke ugha gS RkFkk vijk/k esa varoZfyr gksus ds fy, mlds fo:) dksbZ vH;kjksi.k ugha fd;k x;k gS tks fd izR;FkhZ Ø-2 }kjk dkfjr fd;k x;k gSA
1. This is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed for quash of criminal proceeding arising from Crime No.218/2005 of P.S. Narsinghpur, District Narsinghpur pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narsinghpur parties being State of Madhya Pradesh v. Arun Kumar and another . The petitioner is the accused No.2 before the learned trial Court. The petitioner is a resident of New Delhi and at the time of filing this petition, was the President and CEO of Quipo Infrastructure Equipment Ltd. (known earlier as Indian Infrastructure Equipment Ltd.). It is also stated therein that the said company is a body corporate, duly registered under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and having its registered office at New Delhi and is involved in the of business of renting infrastructure equipment/vehicles.
2. It is the case of the respondent No.1 that on 4.3.2005, at about 4:00 a.m., a Roller Machine (Ingersoll Rand Model RTR-220), which was being used by M/s. Tapi Prestress Products Ltd., in the construction of a road between Narsinghpur and Gotegaon, was alleged to have been driven negligently by its driver Arun Kumar Kahar, the respondent No.2 herein, on account of which three persons namely, Vishal Singh Lodhi, Sahab Singh Rajput and Mahsewari Sharma suffered injuries and Vishal Singh Lodhi eventually succumbed to the said injuries.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not named in the FIR as an accused. The complainant in this case is shown as Vishal Singh Lodhi, who succumbed to the injuries. The police after investigation filed the charge-sheet before the learned trial Court, in which, the petitioner has been shown as an accused No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that there are no specific allegations at all against the petitioner herein and he has been made an accused only on account of being the President of Quipo Infrastructure Equipment Ltd. (earlier known as Indian Infrastructure Equipment Ltd.).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has been sought to be roped in by a contorted application of vicarious liability, whereas, in a road accident case, it is only the driver who is liable to be prosecuted for an offence under section 304A of IPC. After investigation, the police has filed the charge-sheet against the respondent No.2 as the accused No.1 and the petitioner as the accused No.2. Charge-sheet was filed under (a) section 279 of IPC, which is an offence involving rash driving or riding on a public way and the person who is liable to be tried and punished, is the person who was driving the vehicle, (b) under section 337 of IPC which is an offence made punishable for causing hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of others, where again it is the person who caused such hurt by doing anything so rashly or negligently so as to endanger human life or personal safety of others, who shall be held liable for the said offence, (c) under section 338 of IPC which is for causing grievous hurt by an act endangering life or personal safety of the others which is, yet again only applicable on the person who does the act which endangers the life of any persons by causing grievous hurt to them and (d) section 304A of IPC.
5. Besides the aforementioned, offences under sections 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act has also being inserted in the charge-sheet. Section 180 is applicable only where the owner, or the person in-charge of motor vehicle allowed any other person to drive the said vehicle who does not satisfy the provisions relating to license as laid out in sections 3 and 4 of Motor Vehicles Act, punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months. As regard to section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, it only provides for punishment for anyone who drives the motor vehicle in contravention of sections 3 or 4.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that besides vicarious liability,
