Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rachapalli Viswanath Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2021
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7349 of 2021
ORDER:-
This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") is filed seeking quash of charge sheet in C.C.No.201 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sidhout, YSR Kadapa District.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioner is A-2 in C.C.No.201 of 2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sidhout, YSR Kadapa District. Pursuant to registration of crime in Crime No.128 of 2020 by Vontimitta police, investigation was done and eventually charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and other accused under Section 338, 304(A) IPC and under Sections 184, 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short „MV Act‟). The allegation is that A-1 has driven the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, who sustained injuries in the said accident and succumbed to the injuries and that the persons, who are travelling in the vehicle, sustained injuries in the said accident.
During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer found that the petitioner, who is A-2, is the owner of the said vehicle and he allowed the driver, who is A-1, to drive the vehicle without there being any insurance policy to the said vehicle. Therefore, he has filed charge sheet not only for the offences 2 punishable under Sections 338, 304(A) IPC but also under Sections 184, 134(a)(b) r/w 187 of the MV Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the F.I.R was registered in the above Crime No.128 of 2020 only against A-1 for his rash and negligent driving of his vehicle, which resulted into death of a person and injuries to other persons and as such he alone is liable at best for prosecution. He would submit that, however, the prosecution has shown the owner of the vehicle also as A-2, who is the petitioner herein, at the time of filing charge sheet and the criminal proceedings against him are not maintainable and it amounts to abuse of process of Court and thereby prayed for quash of the charge sheet against the petitioner, who is A-2.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the Criminal Petition. He would submit that even though A-1 alone is liable for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, which resulted into death of one person and causing injuries to other persons and that he alone is liable for the offences punishable under Sections 338, 304(A) IPC, as the Investigating Officer found during the course of investigation that the petitioner, who is A-2, is the owner of the said vehicle and as he allowed A-1, who is the driver, to drive the said vehicle without there being any valid insurance policy to his vehicle at that time that he is liable for the offence punishable under Section 196 of the MV Act for violation of Section 146 of the MV Act and other provisions of the MV Act for which the charge sheet is filed. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner, who is A-2, is liable for prosecution for the aforesaid 3 violations which are punishable under law. So, he would pray for dismissal of the Criminal Petition.
As can be seen from the facts of the case, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, which resulted into death of a person and which resulted into causing of injuries to other persons it is only against A-1, who is the driver of the said vehicle. However, the Investigating Officer found during the course of investigation that the petitioner, who is A-2, allowed A-1, who is the driver to drive the said vehicle, without there being any valid insurance policy to the vehicle at the time of accident. It amounts to violation of Section 146 of the MV Act, which is punishable under Section 196 of the MV Act. Therefore, A-2, who is the petitioner herein, is liable for prosecution for the said violation of law. So, it cannot be said that the prosecution against the petitioner is not maintainable and that it amounts to abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
Resultantly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court shall at the time of questioning the accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C shall confine itself against A-2 only to the offences under the MV Act.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Criminal Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 21.12.2021 AKN 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7349 of 2021 Date: 21-12-2021 AKN