THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8975 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner – accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.39 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Prohibition & Excise Offences), Nalgonda, registered for the offences under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’)

and Section 181 and 196 of the M.V Act.

2. Heard the submissions of Sri D. Jaipal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the petitioner was not driving the car at the time of alleged accident and that it was driven by one Prashanth who too died in the accident. He further submitted that just to demand money, from the petitioner herein, the de-facto complainant has come up with a false story that he was driving the car at the time of accident. He further submitted that initially 161 Cr.P.C statements were recorded by the Police. The witnesses have stated that it was driven by one Prashanth who died in the accident, but subsequently his name appeared in the charge sheet and they have also filed 161 Cr.P.C statements which were recorded for the second time, wherein the children of the de- facto complainant have stated that the petitioner herein has driven the car. Thus, the changed version of statements would prove that the case of prosecution is false. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the investigation revealed that, though the petitioner was driving at the time of accident, he requested the inmates of the car, not to disclose his name and on his request, the witnesses have stated that the deceased has driven the vehicle, but subsequently, they stated that the petitioner has driven the vehicle. Therefore, the matter should be subjected to trial. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Vineet Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017) 13 SCC 369 , wherein it was held that in the said case, the complaint/prosecutrix had herself approached the

High Court with a prayer that first information lodged by her be quashed. Thus, in the circumstances, it was held that the material relied upon by the accused has not been refuted by the prosecutrix. Even in the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer, has acknowledged that he could not find any proof to substantiate the charges and the charge sheet had been filed only on the basis of the statement of complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. In those circumstances, it was held that the High Court could have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 and therefore, quashed the criminal proceedings. But, in the present case, the allegations do point out the prima-facie case against the petitioner herein. Hence, the said decision is not applicable to this case.

7. He also relied upon in Prashant Bharti Vs. State of NCT of Delhi , wherein certain guidelines were laid down to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

23) (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accuse is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as

2 AIR 2013 SCC 2753

would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution