S K JAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, questioning the correctness of the proceedings against the petitioner in C. C. No. 322/2006 on the file of the Court of JMFC, Indi Bijapur District and consequently also for quashing the charge sheet dated 25th May, 2006 filed by respondents 2 and 3 in Crime No. 19/2006 vide annexures A and B, has presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) FACTS in brief are that, the second and third respondents herein have registered a case in Crime No. 19/2006 on 4th March, 2006 on the complaint lodged by one Sri Munish kumar Pandit stating that, on 4th March, 2006, at about 1 p. m. when he was running the motor lorry bearing No. HR-47/5733 from chadachan towards Pandarapura when the vehicle was near the sales tax check post, the driver of the lorry No. HR-55/4347 has caused the accident and the said complaint was registered against the driver of the lorry bearing no. HR-47/5733 under Sections 279, 304-A, i. P. C. read with Section 134 of the Motor vehicles Act. It is the further case of petitioner that, petitioner is neither the driver of the said vehicle bearing No. HR-47/5733 nor is related to the said incident as stated by the informant/ complainant in the First Information Report. In the said FIR, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned nor there is any involvement of the petitioner. In the FIR, it is only stated that, walker is dead on account of the accident on 4th March, 2006. Be that as it may, without any justification and without conducting proper investigation, respondents 2 and 3 have filed the charge sheet against the petitioner on 25th May, 2006 under Section 279, read with Section 304-A, I. P. C. and Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, mentioning the petitioner as the accused person. The respondents 2 and 3 unlawfully as well as in total violation of the statutory provisions of law, have implicated the name of the petitioner in the charge sheet instead of the name of the driver of the said vehicle and that, there is no investigation as such made by respondents 2 and 3 relating to the said incident and that, petitioner is totally an innocent person. On the basis of the charge sheet, the Court below accepted the charge as C. C. No. 322/2006 registered in the Court of the J. M. F. C. Indi, bijapur on the basis of the report of the respondents 2 and 3, wherein they have falsely implicated the petitioner by curbing the fundamental rights and liberty to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is constrained to redress his grievance by assailing the correctness of the entire proceedings of the charge sheet, as stated above.

(3.) THE principal ground urged by learned counsel appearing for petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the respondents 2 and 3 have acted against the law and contrary to the facts of the case and hence, the impugned annexures A and B are not at all sustainable in law and are liable to be quashed. Further, he submitted that, it is obligatory on the part of respondents 2 and 3 to conduct enquiry about the driver of the vehicle and proceed with the case in accordance with law. Without doing that exercise, implicating the petitioner as accused instead of the driver of the lorry bearing No. HR-47/5733 is not justifiable nor it is in accordance with law. Therefore, there is direct infringement of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and there is no vicarious liability under the Criminal law and that, for the acts of the lorry driver, the owner of the vehicle cannot be punished. Therefore, it is the case of petitioner that, due to false implication of petitioner in the offence, the fundamental rights and liberty of the petitioner is infringed and the same are in total violation of the rights guaranteed under the constitution of India. Therefore, petitioner has presenting this petition, invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in the charge sheet, as referred above.