Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
State vs Vikash on 9 April, 2026 cites

State Of U.P. & Anr vs U.P. Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam S.S. & Ors on 2 May, 2008

3. It is pertinent to note that the complainant / injured is the chief witness of the prosecution and has compounded the major offence disclosed in the charge sheet. An issue has been raised by the Ld. Counsel for the accused on the last date of hearing that this State Vs. Vikas 2 FIR No.844/2022 Digitally signed by BHARTI BHARTI BENIWAL BENIWAL Date: 2026.04.09 16:52:13 +0630 is a fit case for exercising power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. for stopping the proceedings as nothing fruitful would be achieved. There is possibility of witnesses not deposing against the accused. I agree with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel. Even more relevant is the description of accident in Asal Tehrir and statement of victim. Even otherwise the allegations made by the complainant / injured are only that accused was driving the vehicle fast and had hit him. The exact manner in which the vehicle was being driven by the accused is not mentioned in Asal Tehrir or statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, Sections 279 and 337 of IPC both punished rash and negligent act. The only difference is that in Section 279 IPC there is rashness and negligence which may result in injury and Section 338 IPC is invoked when such an act actually results in an injury being caused. Section 338 IPC has been made compoundable but Section 279 IPC is not compoundable. Perhaps, one reason is that, as far as Section 337 IPC is concerned, there is a determinable victim i.e. injured whereas in offence under Section 279 IPC, there is no determinable injured who can compound the offence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 249 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1