SHRI DEVDAS BARUA, S/O LATE B.B. BARUA, RESIDENT OF QTR. NO. KF1, G.P. SLOPE, P.O.KADMA, P.S. KADMA, TOWN Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come out with a prayer for quashing of entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner in relation to Kadma P.S. Case No. 205 of 2014 dated 07.10.2014 including the order dated 11.01.2016 wherein learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur failed to consider the fact the petitioner was not at all driving the vehicle in question during the time of accident.

(2.) The facts, which are relevant in this case, in short, is that an F.I.R. was lodged on 07.10.2014 under Sections 279, 337, 338 at Kadma Police Station against one Devdas Barua, S/o late B.B. Barua, resident of Qtr. No. KF1, G.P. Slope, P.O.Kadma, P.S. Kadma, Town-Jamshedpur wherein it was stated that on 06.10.2014 at about 10.30 p.m. the informant Wasuddin Khan along with his brother-in-law namely Mohd. Ashraf Khan were standing in the Ganesh Puja Ground and at that very point of time one Devdas Barua rashly and negligently dashed Mohd. Ashraf Khan and he was seriously injured and thereafter with the help of local people was transferred to TMH Hospital and thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged at 6.00 p.m. The injured Mohd. Ashraf Khan succumbed to his injury and the police submitted final form on 25.01.2015 adding Sec. 304A of the Indian Penal Code. It would be proper to mention here that the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class vide order dated 16.04.2015 held that prima facie case for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the accused persons and accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken against the accused Devdas Barua.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the alleged date of occurrence the petitioner was not plying the vehicle in question and it was being driven by one Abdul Hanif. Learned counsel further submitted that though the local police was apprised of the fact that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle but the police failed to ascertain the fact. It is further submitted that a petition was filed impleading the driver Abdul Hanif as accused person for summoning him to appear before the court with regard to the matter for prosecution. It is further submitted that the F.I.R. is afterthought and most of the witnesses are hearsay and no T.I.P. had taken place for identifying the accused and the witnesses are not known the accused persons. The petitioner further stated that he was not present at he time of occurrence and he was not the person who was plying the vehicle. It is also submitted that it is a case of wrong identification and as such the order taking cognizance was bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that he was never associated with the occurrence and the evidence in support of the case, clearly fails to prove the charge against the accused and continuance of such proceeding would seriously jeopardize and prejudice the interest of the accused.