The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a traffic accident, the driver may not be held guilty if the actions of the deceased contributed to the accident and the driver acted promptly to prevent further harm.

N.N. Mathur, J.-By way of instant revision petition under Section 397, Cr. P. C. the accused has challenged the order dated 26-4-2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. 1st Class, Ladnu framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A, I. P. C.

2. It is alleged that on 26-4-2003 a Conductor of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation lodged an F. I. R. at police station Ladnu stating inter alia that the bus bearing No. 999/RJ-22 left for Pali at about 8.45

p.m. for Sujangarh. The bus was driven by the accused Bagtawar Singh. The bus left the bus-stand Deedwana at about 7.30 p.m. from the village Sanwarad. Seven passengers boarded the bus for Ladnu. He issued tickets to all of them. One of them occupied the seat near the gate. When the bus reached near Bankaliya bus-stand at about 9 p.m., all of sudden, one of the passengers opened the gate and jumped out. On asking by him and the other passengers the accused stopped the bus. The person who jumped out the bus died on the spot. Number of people assembled. He was taken to the hospital. After usual investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused for offence under Section 279 and 304-A of the I. P. C.

3. Havingheard learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed.

4. Thedeceased, on his own, opened the gate and alighted from the bus, while it was. still, in motion. On asking by the Conductor and the passengers the petitioner immediately stopped the bus. On these facts if the deceased had no patience and without waiting for the bus to come to complete halt, alighted, no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the bus. Thus, even if the prosecution case goes un-rebutted there are no chances of petitioner’s being guilty for offence under Section 279 or 304-A, I. P. C.

5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ladnu dated 26-4-2004 framing charge against the petitioner for offence under Section 279 and 304-A, I. P. C. is quashed and set aside.