G SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 326 of 1993 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 29-3-1993 at about 11.30 AM. while the defacto-complainant was proceeding in a car bearing No. AP 9P 585 towards Public garden and near A1 cafe, Nampally, Hyderabad when he was crossing R.T.C. bus, which was driven by the petitioner, the petitioner applied breaks suddenly due to which the car was damaged and its headlight and seal beam were damaged and the defacto-complainant filed a complaint before the police.

(3.) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nampally Police Station after conducting investigation filed charge sheet alleging : "During the course of investigation it is revealed that on 29-3-93 at about 11.30 AM while LW. 1 proceeding in Car No. AP-9P-585 towards Public Garden and near A-1 Cafe Nampally while he was crossing RTC Bus, the accused RTC Bus driver applied breaks suddenly due to which car was damaged. Its head light and seal beam were damaged. Thus, the accused is liable for punishment under Sec. 279 I.P.C." The Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sec. 279 of the Indian Penal Pode. Sec. 279 of the Indian Penal Code reads : "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. From a reading of the above section, it is clear that there must be rash and negligent driving, such driving be in a manner so as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, then only It constitutes an offence. The allegations made in the charge sheet do not attract any of the ingredients of Sec. 279 of I.P.C. The allegation is that due to application of sudden breaks of the bus driven by the petitioner herein, the lights and seal beam of the car was damaged. Therefore, it cannot be said that an offence punishable under Sec. 279 of I.P.C., is made out. In R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (1) AIR 1960 SC 866, it has been held by the Supreme Court that where the allegations in the FIR or the complainant do not constitute the offence alleged, in such cases the High Court while exercising its inherent powers under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings.