The court ruled that the proceedings in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot be stalled pending further investigation, as established in prior judgments.

JUDGMENT

The original petition is filed with the following prayers:

“(i) To call for the records leading to the case;

(ii) To pass such orders or direction to keep in abeyance the further proceedings in OP (MV)1030/2022 on the files of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ernakulam, till the completion of the further enquiry and submission of final report in FIR No. 876/2021 of Ambalamedu Police Station pursuant to Exhibit P3 Judgment;

(iii) To pass such other order as are deemed just fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Earlier, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing OP(MAC) Nos.34/2025 and 51/2025. Crl. M.C No.8808/2022 was also filed to quash the final report in CC No. 466/2022 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chottanikkara, arising from FIR 876/2021 of Ambalamedu Police Station registered under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. OP(MV) Nos.34/2025 and 51/2025 were filed to direct the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam to return OP(MV) 1030/2022 filed. The prayer in OP(MAC) 34/2025 was to defer the consideration of the case by the MACT.

3. Through judgment dated 13.08.2025, this Court found that all the contentions raised therein are matters to be decided on evidence. It is found that the reliability or otherwise of the materials produced is a matter to be tested at the time of trial and not in a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. As regards the original petitions filed, it was held that the Tribunal will have to consider the question of negligence and that without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to question the charge sheet and also lead evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate their contentions, OP(MAC) 34/2025 was dismissed.

4. After the said dismissal, the petitioners again filed W.P.(Crl.)

1184/2025 seeking a direction to conduct a re investigation. This Court by Ext.P3 judgment dated 27.08.2025 directed the respondents therein to complete the enquiry within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners concedes in the writ petition that on 16.09.2025, a report was filed finding that there were no irregularity in the investigation conducted. Thereafter, the petitioners met the DCP and narrated the entire events. One person, who claims to be an eyewitness had also sent a statement via e-mail to the ACP office, as seen from Ext.P5.

5. The present original petition is to keep in abeyance the further proceedings in OP(MV) 1030/2022 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, till the completion of the further enquiry or submission of the final report.

6. It has to be straight away noticed that the very same prayers were made earlier, and this Court had rejected the contentions of the petitioners through Ext.P2, after which, through Ext.P3 judgment, this Court had directed the further investigation to be completed in six weeks, which was also completed as admitted in the writ petition itself.

7. It was clearly found in Ext.P2 judgment that proceedings before the Tribunal cannot be stalled to await the challenge made by the petitioners as against the criminal proceedings. The said judgment has become final.

8. The statement filed on 09.01.2026 by the ACP states that the steps have been initiated for a further investigation of the case. If the investigation turns out to be in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners can take advantage of the same, but that cannot be a reason for stalling the proceedings before the Tribunal, as already held in Ext.P2 judgment.

Given the above, I do not find any merit in this Original Petition, and the same will stand dismissed.

S