LAWS(HPH)-2019-4-201

AJAY SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Decided On April 17, 2019
AJAY SHARMA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF H.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge 1. By medium of this petition filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Code'), the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 212/2017, dtd. 9/9/2017 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes registered at Police Station, Hamirpur and further questioned cognizance taken by the learned trial Magistrate in case No. 29II of 2018, titled as State vs. Ajay Sharma under Ss. 279 and 337 IPC.

(2.) It is averred that on 9/9/2017, the petitioner was returning back from Baddi to his Village Baffrin, District Hamirpur in his car bearing registration No. HP22A0952 and when he reached near Kohli, then his car was hit by a motorcycle bearing registration No. HP22E1330 being driven by Akshay Kumar, respondent No.2, whereas Arvind alias Mohinder, respondent No.3 was its pillion rider. Both respondents No. 2 and 3 were in inebriated condition, as confirmed in the MLCs, which show that alcohol content in the blood of respondent No.2 was 85.10 mg% and in the blood of respondent No.3 was 37.28 mg%.

(3.) According to the petitioner, he intimated the police regarding the accident and the police visited the spot and found respondent No.2 in inebriated condition so much so that his statement could not be recorded. Since respondents No.2 and 3 had sustained injuries, they were taken to the hospital where expenses for their medication were borne by the petitioner. But, surprisingly, instead of making respondent No.2 as an accused, the police falsely registered a case against the petitioner vide aforesaid FIR under Ss. 279 and 337 IPC, whereas respondent No.2 has only been challaned under Sec. 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is averred that solely due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, who was in inebriated condition, the accident had taken place and, therefore, under no circumstances could the case have been registered against the petitioner. It is further averred that the allegations made in the FIR are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner.