Kerala High Court
K.Ragesh vs State Of Kerala on 25 June, 2015
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/4TH ASHADHA, 1937
Crl.MC.No. 3608 of 2015
---------------------------------
CC 1146/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, AMBALAPUZHA
CRIME NO. 668/2009 OF AMBALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA
........
PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED:
---------------------------------------------
K.RAGESH,
S/O. MANOHARAN, SREEVALSAM HOUSE, KUNDUVAMPURAM,
KATTAMPUZHAPURAM P.O., PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
SMT.T.J.SEEMA
SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SMT.SMITHA PHILIPOSE
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
msv/
Crl.MC.No. 3608 of 2015
----------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.668/2009.
ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE LETTER PERTAINING TO FORD ESCORT
BRAND BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KL 05/F/4371.
ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE LETTER EVIDENCING THE TRANSFER OF
OWNERSHIP PERTAINING TO TATA SAFARI KL 9 H 2211.
ANNEXURE A4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF ATTENDANCE REGISTER
OF SBT, MANNAR BRANCH
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE.
Msv/
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
==================
Crl.M.C.No. 3608 of 2015
==================
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2015
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is accused No.2 in C.C.No.1146/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ambalappuzha, involving offences under Secs.279, 337, 338 of the I.P.C. and Sec.134(A) & (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The allegation is that on 18.9.2009 at round 9.45 a.m. the car belonging to the petitioner, of which the 1st accused was the driver, knocked down a pedestrian resulting in fracture. That the car also lost control and rammed into two autorickshaws parked in the nearby autorickshaw stand resulting in damage to the property. That the petitioner has been made accused on the assumption that he is the owner of the vehicle. It is contended that the petitioner had transferred the vehicle in question as early as on 23.10.2008 as evidenced by Anx.A-2 sale letter. It is further pointed out that even if it is assumed that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle, still he cannot be prosecuted for the rash and negligent act of the driver, as Crl.M.C.3608/15 - : 2 :-
there is no vicarious liability in criminal law, except to the extent that is provided in Sec.34 of the I.P.C. The factum of ownership alone cannot be made basis for prosecution of its owner when the vehicle gets involved in any crime, etc. Accordingly, it is prayed by the petitioner for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings against him in C.C.No.1146/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ambalappuzha arising out of Crime No.668/2009 of Ambalappuzha Police Station and all further proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State of Kerala.
3. From a reading of the impugned Anx.A-1 final report/ charge sheet filed in the impugned Crime No.668/2009 of Ambalappuzha Police Station, it can be seen that the prosecution case is that the car said to be belonging to the petitioner (A-2) bearing registration No.KL05/F/4371 knocked down CW1 resulting in fracture to his left leg and left arm and the vehicle also knocked down two other persons and had rammed into two autorickshaws which was parked nearby, etc. This is the specific and precise allegation raised as against the petitioner, who is arrayed as A-2 Crl.M.C.3608/15 - : 3 :-
therein. Anx.A-2 is the sale letter said to be executed as early as on on 23.5.2008, thereby the petitioner has sold the vehicle to another person. The date of the incident is alleged to be on 18.9.2009.
Evidently, no proper investigation has been conducted on this aspect of the matter.
4. The offences alleged are those involving Secs.279, 337, 338 of the I.P.C. and Sec.134(A) and (b) of the Motor Vehicle Act.
Sec. 279 of the I.P.C. reads as follows:
"Sec.279:Rash driving or riding on a public way.- Whoever drives any vehicle or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Sec.337 of the I.P.C. reads as follows:
"Sec.337: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.- Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
Sec.338 of the I.P.C. reads as follows:
"Sec.338: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others:- Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Crl.M.C.3608/15 - : 4 :-
Sec.134 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:
"Sec.134: Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person:- When any person is injured or any property of a third party is damaged, as a result of an accident in which a motor vehicle is involved, the driver of the vehicle or other person in charge of the vehicle shall-
(a) unless it is not practicable to do so on account of mob fury or any other reason beyond his control, take all reasonable steps to secure medical attention for the injured person, by conveying him to the nearest medical practitioner or hospital, and it shall be the duty of every registered medical practitioner or the doctor on the duty in the hospital immediately to attend lo the injured person and render medical aid or treatment without waiting for any procedural formalities, unless the injured person or his guardian, in case he is a minor, desires otherwise;
(b) give on demand by a police officer any information required by him, or, if no police officer is present, report the circumstances of the occurrence, including the circumstances, if any, for not taking reasonable steps to secure medical attention as required under clause (a), at the nearest police station as soon as possible, and in any case within twenty-
four hours of the occurrence;
(c) give the following information in writing to the insurer, who has issued the certificates of insurance, about the occurrence of the accident, namely:-
(i) insurance policy number and period of its validity:
(ii) date, time and place of accident;
(iii) particulars of the persons injured or killed in the accident;
(iv) name of the driver and the particulars of his driving licence."
A person, who is only the owner of the vehicle, cannot be prosecuted for the alleged rash and negligent act of his driver. It is too elementary to state that there is no vicarious liability except to Crl.M.C.3608/15 - : 5 :-
the extent that is provided in Sec.34 of the I.P.C. The factum of ownership alone cannot be made basis for prosecution of its owner, when the said vehicle driven by the person, other than the owner, gets involved in such offence. Hence the petitioner is well justified in seeking the prayer for quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings in this case to the extent it affect him. Accordingly, it is ordered that the impugned Anx.A-1 final report/ charge sheet filed in Crime No. 668/2009 of Ambalappuzha Police Station, which has led to the pendency of C.C.No.1146/2013 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ambalappuzha pending against the petitioner and all further proceedings arising therefrom pending against the petitioner (A-2) are quashed. It is made clear that the quashment ordered in this case is only to the limited extent the impugned proceedings concern the arraying the petitioner herein as accused No.2.
With these observations and directions, the Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.S. to Judge
Crl.M.C.3608/15 - : 6 :-