Chattisgarh High Court
Shailendra Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh 11 Crref/2/2017 ... on 18 March, 2019
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPCR No. 68 of 2017
• Shailendra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 38 Years R/o
Bhawani Nagar, Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur, Revenue And Civil District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police District Korba
Chhattisgarh
2. S H O, Police Station Kartala, District Korba Chhattisgarh
3. Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Ltd. Through Its Authorized
Signatory, Beside Renault Car Showroom, Zone- 1, Deen Dayal Garden Road,
Vyapar Vihar, Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
4. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, First Floor, Shriram
Commercial Complex, Bus Stand Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Rupesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Akash Pandey, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order On Board 18/03/2019
1. Heard.
2. The present petition is for correction of vehicle number which was wrongly written in the FIR.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that number of the truck which was involved in the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC, the actual number was C.G. 10-R-0799 but instead of writing the same number in the FIR the number was wrongly written as C.G. 10-R-0977. It is stated that the seizer of the documents would show that the vehicle having registration of C.G. 10-R- 0799 was sized which was the actual number of the vehicle involved in the 2 accident. But inadvertently while writing F.I.R. the number was wrongly written which lead to the denial of the rightful claim of the petitioner with the insurance. He further submits that even the Trial Court while giving the custody of the vehicle has given the vehicle registration No. as C.G. 10-R-0799 and the surveyor report also shows that the survey of the damaged truck was bearing No. C.G. 10-R-0799.
4. The reply of the State shows that the number C.G. 10-R-0799 was written on the basis of the documentary evidence of the seizer of the registration book of truck. Along with the document, copy of the F.I.R is filed and in the copy of the F.I.R the number was written as C.G. 10-R-0977 and the seizer memo shows the vehicle number is written as C.G. 10-R-0977 whereas the registration book is having registration number as C.G. 10-R-0799. The photographs of the surveyor is also placed which shows that the vehicle number is C.G.-10-R- 0977. The trial Court while adjudicating the case has given the custody of the vehicle bearing registration No. as C.G. 10-R-0799 with respect to the crime. Taking into the reply it appears that in the F.I.R inadvertently the registration No.C.G. 10-R-0977 has wrongly being written as subsequent document shows that it was a different number which seized from truck. Accordingly, it is directed that the F.I.R registered under crime No.110/15 for the trial of offence under Sections 279, 337 & 338 IPC the number of the vehicle be corrected as C.G. 10-R-0799 instead of C.G.-10-R-0977.
5. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
Goutam Bhaduri Judge Ashu/ Jyoti