O RDER

This petition is filed seeking quashment of C.C.No.274 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

2.The case in brief is as follows:-

3.On 03.03.2019 at about 07.30 pm., the deceased, namely, K.Sasikumar, after seeing his sister, by name, K.Susila, was returning from Asaripallam in his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 72 N 8788 CT 100. When he came near the place of occurrence, a vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 74 L 9154 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and died on the spot.

4.On the basis of the complaint given by the 2nd respondent herein, a case in Crime No.29 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC was registered against this petitioner. Investigation was undertaken and after collecting materials and also recording the statements of the witnesses, final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, which was also taken on file in C.C.No.274 of 2020 and now, it is pending.

5.Seeking quashment of the aforesaid final report, this petition came to be filed mainly on the ground that the vehicle number was corrected as TN 74 L 9165 instead of TN 74 L 9154. For correcting the vehicle number, the second complaint was given on 08.04.2019. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the petitioner is not involved in the occurrence.

6.The Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle on 21.03.2019 bearing Reg.No. TN 74 L 9154 and the inspection report was also issued on 21.03.2019, wherein, the vehicle number is mentioned as TN 74 L 9154. So, the examination conducted by the Motor Vehicle Inspector is not in relating to vehicle number TN 74 L 9165. The owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No. TN 74 L 9165 was not at all examined during the course of investigation.

7.Heard both sides.

8.When the matter was taken up for hearing at the time of admission, notice was not ordered to the 2nd respondent herein, since only technical issue has been raised by the petitioner on the basis of the material that has been collected during the course of investigation. 9.The occurrence, which is said to have been taken on place on

03.03.2019 at about 07.30 pm., has not been denied and disputed. In the First Information Report, it has been specifically stated that this petitioner was driving the vehicle bearing Reg.No. TN 74 L 9154 in the opposite direction of the deceased’s vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the deceased. At that time, the headlight of the offending vehicle was not functioning.

10.Later, during the course of investigation, on 08.04.2019, the 2nd respondent has given a statement to the 1st respondent herein to the effect that during the presentation of the complaint, he has wrongly stated the vehicle number as TN 74 L 9154 instead of TN 74 L 9165. Similarly, he has wrongly stated the deceased’s vehicle number as TN 72 N 8788 instead of TN 72 M 8788. On that basis, investigation has been undertaken.

11.Since the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle bearing Reg.No. TN 72 M 8788, which was driven by the deceased, damages were found in the vehicle. It was undertaken on 21.03.2019, which means after a lapse of 18 days from the date of occurrence. Similarly, the alleged offending vehicle was also inspected on 21.03.2019, which is mentioned as TN 74 L 9165. During the course of inspection, the name of the driver has been stated as Jeyaseelan, who is the petitioner herein and the driving licence particulars have also been correctly mentioned. The requisition has been sent on 21.03.2019 and on the same day itself, it has been examined or inspected.

12.Now, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that because of the change of vehicle registration number, the investigation has not been properly undertaken as to the vehicle involved in the alleged occurrence and with this defect, i