Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 340 (PAT)

Bhargeshwar Bannerjee v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-14

MADHAVENDRA SARAN

body2007
Judgment Madhavendra Saran, J. 1. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as the Code) has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated 7.4.1998 passed by Smt. Rita Mishra, Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Kankerbagh PS. Case No. 98 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the prayer for discharge made on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.2.1997 at about 7.45 PM the Police party in course of patrolling reached near Corporation Office at Arya Kumar Road and found that there was Traffic Jam. It has been alleged that an Ambassador Car bearing registration no. BR-1E 6983 was parked in the middle of the road on the wrong side which was the cause of Jam. The driver was called upon and on being asked replied that owner of the Car is petitioner Bhargeshwar Banerjee and it is he who has ordered to park the Car on the western portion of the Pitch Road. It is said that in the meantime, the petitioner also arrived and when being asked to remove the vehicle from that place he refused to do the same. 3. It appears that at the time of framing of charge a petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner to discharge him from the case on the ground that on the basis of allegation no case under Section 431 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. The learned Magistrate heard the matter and by the impugned order dated 7.4.1998 rejected the prayer and posted the case for framing of the charge. 4. Against the said order dated 7.4.1998 the petitioner has filed the present application for quashing. 5. It has been submitted that on the basis of allegations no offence under Sec. 431 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the petitioner as from bare reading of the First Information Report itself it is clear that no injury to road has been caused by the act of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that on the basis of allegations the instant case comes within the purview of Sec. 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. Section 431 of the Indian Penal Code deals with an aggravated form of mischief. It is in respect of mischief caused to public road, bridge, river or channel. 7. It has further been submitted that on the basis of allegations the instant case comes within the purview of Sec. 179 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. Section 431 of the Indian Penal Code deals with an aggravated form of mischief. It is in respect of mischief caused to public road, bridge, river or channel. 7. Section 431 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows: "431. Mischief by injury to public road, bridge, river or channel.Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which renders or which he knows to be likely to render any public road, bridge, navigable river, or navigable channel, natural or artificial, impassable or less safe for travelling or conveying property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both." 8. Now as per allegation the petitioner had parked his Ambassador Car on the western portion of the road i.e. on the wrong side which caused traffic jam. There is nothing to show that the petitioner-accused by doing an act of mischief rendered the road impassable. There is also nothing to show that he caused any damage to the public road. Mere placing or parking of Car on a public road, in my considered opinion would not come within the purview of Sec. 431 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. I find substance in the argument of learned counsel that the present allegation comes within the purview of Section 179 or other sections of the Motor Vehicles Act. 10. Such being the position this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 7.4.1998 is hereby quashed.