MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of FIR No. 478/98 under sections 279/304-A IPC, Police Station Najafgarh, and the proceedings emanating therefrom in the case titled "state v. Manoj" pending in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts.

(2.) THE facts leading to the registration of the aforesaid case was that on 18. 08. 1998 one Poonam, wife of Naresh, lodged a complaint with Police station Najafgarh that her son aged one and a half years while playing outside the house had met with an accident with a tempo being driven by the petitioner with great speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The front left wheel of the tempo went over the head of her son, who died at the spot. After the completion of the investigation, challan was filed on 20th december, 2005, i. e. , much beyond theperiod of limitation as provided under section 468 Cr. P. C. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned trial court by its order of the same date, i. e. , 20th December, 2005 condoned the delay in the filing of the charge-sheet and took cognizance of the offence. The said order reads as under:-

(3.) I have heard Mr. Jitendra Sarin, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Ohri, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not even afforded an opportunity of being heard while deciding the issue of delay, and that as per settled principles of law, it was incumbent upon the trial court to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner before deciding the issue of limitation. Even otherwise, he further submits, the order passed by the learned trial court is a cryptic one and while condoning the delay of more than four years, the learned trial court merely observed that the delay was being condoned as the alleged offence was of a serious nature.