MUMBAI: Holding that the police appeared to have lodged a first information report “in a casual manner” against a motorcyclist last April in Mumbai, in view of a special drive undertaken to curb wrong side driving, Bombay HC quashed the FIR, subject to Rs 15,000 costs to be paid by the accused to Central Police welfare Fund.
The Jogeshwari police had lodged the FIR for offences of rash and dangerous driving against one Peter Misquitta, 22. He was found by the traffic constable to be riding his two-wheeler dangerously on April 29, 2022 at 10 am in the opposite direction to on-going traffic, the FIR contended.
Misquitta moved the court to have the case pending before an Andheri Magistrate against him, quashed. His lawyer Sakshi Mane argued there was no case made out at all against him.
The HC bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh holding in his favour, said an offence of a rash driving under section 279 of Indian Penal Code invoked against him “is attracted if the vehicle is driven in a rash or negligent manner as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt to other person.”
The HC order said, “Except making a bald allegation in the FIR that, the two-wheeler was driven at high speed in opposite direction of traffic there is no act attributed to the Petitioner to indicate that, the driving was in a rash or negligent manner,” and added, neither is an offence made out against under section 336 IPC for endangering human life by a rash or negligent act.
As held by the HC in another case, “driving of vehicle at high speed may not attract the provisions of Section 279 of the IPC,’’ the order noted.
The FIR had also invoked section 184 of The Motor Vehicles Act for offence of driving in a manner dangerous to the public.
The Chargesheet was filed in the case, submitted the additional public prosecutor S D Shinde opposing the quashing plea.
The HC said to sustain a charge under Section 184 MV Act the person has to drive the vehicle at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public having regard to the circumstances enumerated in the Act. The motorist was riding on a service road and the HC said it found no allegations in the chargesheet to warrant the invocation of section 184, MV Act. The section attracts a maximum one year sentence and fine of Rs 5000.
The HC also noted no statement of any independent witness has been recorded. Holding that the FIR does not make out a prima facie case of rash or negligent driving in a manner which will endanger human life.
The HC also noted that two persons were accused in single FIR although the acts alleged are distinct acts and unconnected with each other.
The Jogeshwari police had lodged the FIR for offences of rash and dangerous driving against one Peter Misquitta, 22. He was found by the traffic constable to be riding his two-wheeler dangerously on April 29, 2022 at 10 am in the opposite direction to on-going traffic, the FIR contended.
Misquitta moved the court to have the case pending before an Andheri Magistrate against him, quashed. His lawyer Sakshi Mane argued there was no case made out at all against him.
The HC bench of Justices Ajay Gadkari and Sharmila Deshmukh holding in his favour, said an offence of a rash driving under section 279 of Indian Penal Code invoked against him “is attracted if the vehicle is driven in a rash or negligent manner as to endanger human life or likely to cause hurt to other person.”
The HC order said, “Except making a bald allegation in the FIR that, the two-wheeler was driven at high speed in opposite direction of traffic there is no act attributed to the Petitioner to indicate that, the driving was in a rash or negligent manner,” and added, neither is an offence made out against under section 336 IPC for endangering human life by a rash or negligent act.
As held by the HC in another case, “driving of vehicle at high speed may not attract the provisions of Section 279 of the IPC,’’ the order noted.
The FIR had also invoked section 184 of The Motor Vehicles Act for offence of driving in a manner dangerous to the public.
The Chargesheet was filed in the case, submitted the additional public prosecutor S D Shinde opposing the quashing plea.
The HC said to sustain a charge under Section 184 MV Act the person has to drive the vehicle at a speed or in a manner dangerous to the public having regard to the circumstances enumerated in the Act. The motorist was riding on a service road and the HC said it found no allegations in the chargesheet to warrant the invocation of section 184, MV Act. The section attracts a maximum one year sentence and fine of Rs 5000.
The HC also noted no statement of any independent witness has been recorded. Holding that the FIR does not make out a prima facie case of rash or negligent driving in a manner which will endanger human life.
The HC also noted that two persons were accused in single FIR although the acts alleged are distinct acts and unconnected with each other.
