Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Udaram & Ors vs State & Anr on 6 July, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 260 / 2017
1. Udaram S/o Shri Hothiram, aged about 50 years, by caste
Meghwal, R/o Aambedker Colony, Barmer (Rajasthan)
2. Aadu Ram S/o Shri Annaram, Age about 55 years, by caste
Meghwal, R/o Near Mahadev Petrol Pump, Ahemdabad Road,
Barmer (Raj.)
3. Laxman Das Berara S/o Shri Setaram, aged about 54 years, by
caste Jatia, R/o New Jatiawas, Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajsthan through Superintendent of Police, Barmer.
2. Shri Kishanlal S/o Gurnamal by caste Sindhi, aged about 55
years, R/o Rai colony, Barmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. SP Sharma
For Respondent(s) :Mr. KK Rawal
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 06/07/2017
1. The brief facts of the case are that the complaint was lodged on 2 September, 2016 by one Shri Kishan Lal stating that about 4.30 when he was visiting the Court campus in Barmer to collect certain stamp, at that time while returning a truck bearing registration No.46 GA 1219 rashly and negligently came from the wrong side and caused an accident, resulting into causing injury to his relative Deepa who was going on the right side of the road, who succumbed to the injuries and died.
2. It is further stated that in the FIR that one Shri Udaram belonging to Dalit Sangersh Samiti and Aaduram and Laxmandas Berera were on Dharana on the other side and therefore, the truck came from the wrong side. Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the present petitioner had taken permission for the Dharna from the competent authority which is reflected in (2 of 2) [CRLMP-260/2017] Annexure-4.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has shown Annexure-9 dated 27.01.2011 whereby the present road has been closed for heavy traffic during the day hours from 9 AM to 9 PM.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that since the whole matter is consolidated, therefore, attraction of Section 279, 304 A along with Section 283 of IPC is justifiable.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the present petitioner who was merely conducting a Dharna could by no stretch of imagination can be said to have committed the offence under Section 279 and 304 of IPC. Thus, there is conclusive proof on record and on the bare perusal of the FIR as well as the cognizance order along with the facts as narrated, it is clear that on the face of it, the offence of Section 279 and 304 A are not made out against the present petitioner.
6. Consequently, the misc. petition is partly allowed while quashing the cognizance order in case No.850/2016 dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure-13) to the extent that it is taking cognizance against the present petitioner under Section 304 A & Section 279 of IPC. However, it is made clear that as far as the order pertains to Section 283 of IPC, the same is not found worth interfering in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. but the petitioner shall have liberty to take all objections regarding the said section at the time of framing of charge.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. sudheer