cran1101.22

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1101 OF 2022

SHOUKAT LATIF SHAIKH

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Abhinay D. Khot

APP for Respondent-State: Mr. S.D. Ghayal

…..

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG AND

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATED : 10 JUNE 2022

PER COURT:-

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, the applicant is seeking quashing of F.I.R. bearing Crime

No. 194 of 2018 registered with Dindrud Police Station, Tq.

Mjalgaon, District Beed for the offences punishable under Sections

279 and 337 of I.P.C. r.w. Sections 134 and 187 of Motor Vehicles

Act 1988 and consequential charge sheet No. 65 of 2019 filed before

learned J.M.F.C. at Majalgaon, District Beed.

2.

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and

learned A.P.P.

With the assistance of learned counsel for the

parties, we have gone through the copy of charge sheet.

cran1101.22

-2-

3.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that

the applicant is the driver of the vehicle and his vehicle was not

involved in the accident. In order to support the said

submission, learned counsel has pointed out that there is certain

overwriting in the matter of registration number of the vehicle,

which was initially mentioned as “MH-13-AS-8779” which has

been changed to “MH-13-AX-8779”. Secondly, it is submitted

that the said vehicle is referred to as ‘pick-up’ while the vehicle

of the applicant was a goods vehicle. It is submitted that there

are statements of witnesses which indicate that it was a goods

vehicle. Learned counsel submits that there is difference

between vehicle which is referred to as a pick-up and the vehicle

which is a goods vehicle. On these two grounds learned counsel

has urged that the F.I.R. and the consequential charge sheet

deserve to be quashed.

4.

Learned A.P.P. submits that due to inadvertent error

while mentioning registration number in the F.I.R. the same

has been corrected and it does not change the aspect of

identification of the vehicle involved in the accident. He

cran1101.22

-3-

further pointed out that merely because the vehicle is referred

to as a pick-up, is not sufficient to hold that the said vehicle was

not involved in the accident.

5.

We have considered the circumstances and the submissions

made by respective parties. We find that the number of vehicle is

merely corrected as “MH-13-AX 8779” which was earlier mentioned

as “MH-13-AS-8779”. The said discrepancy while mentioning the

number can happen on account of phonetic similarity while

pronouncing “AX” and “AS”. The other material part of registration

number is not shown to be changed, altered or scored out. Even

referring the vehicle as a pick up in our view is not sufficient to hold

that it is not a goods vehicle. Description of the vehicle as a pick up

has to be seen as a common parlance reference. At any rate, this is

not the stage where all these aspects can be appreciated, which can be

done at the trial. No case is made out for quashing of the case.

Criminal application is rejected.

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J. C.V. BHADANG, J.

rlj/