Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 847 (JHR)

Rajesh Kumar Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-04-09

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2019
JUDGMENT Amitav K. Gupta, J. - This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.06.2018, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh, has dismissed the Criminal Revision No.78 of 20l8 and the order dated 07.03.2017 whereby cognizance has been taken of the offence under Sections 279,337,338,427 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, in connection with Rajrappa P.S. Case No.122 of 2013 (G.R. No. 4386 of 2013), and the order dated 27.07.2018, whereby the bail of the petitioner has been cancelled by the court of S.D.J.M Ramgarh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the owner of vehicle no.OD16-6152. That on the date of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Rupak Kumar Choudhary, the driver of the vehicle who was arrested and granted bail by the police. It is further contended that the petitioner was not the driver of the vehicle and he has been implicated in this case just because he happens to be the owner of the vehicle. 3. It is argued that the court below has committed a manifest error in not appreciating the fact that the owner cannot be made vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted bail and representation petition under section 317 of Cr.P.C , 1973was filed on behalf of the petitioner through his lawyer. It is submitted that the re-visional court has rejected the Criminal Revision No.78 of 2018 on the ground that there was an inordinate delay of 1456 days in preferring the revision. It is submitted that the re-visional court has failed to appreciate that no notice was served upon the petitioner nor the court below had directed that the order be seen by the conducting counsel of the petitioner, prior to passing of the order of cancellation of the bail of the petitioner. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle and the court below has taken cognizance in a routine and mechanical manner without appreciating the fact that the petitioner was not the driver of the vehicle. 4. Mr. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was the driver of the offending vehicle and the court below has taken cognizance in a routine and mechanical manner without appreciating the fact that the petitioner was not the driver of the vehicle. 4. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned SC-I (Mines), has submitted that admittedly the petitioner was granted bail by the court below, but he never raised any objection, nor filed any application challenging the order whereby cognizance was taken of the offences under Sections 279/337/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that perusal of the order passed by the re-visional court reveals that no sufficient cause or reasonable explanation was brought forth for the abnormal delay of 1456 days in filing the revision. It is submitted that the order sheets disclose that the case was fixed for explaining the substance of accusation. That the court below had directed the petitioner to be physically present, but he failed to appear before the court, where after, by order dated 27.07.2018, the court below cancelled the bail of the petitioner. That the impugned order does not suffer from any impropriety or illegality. However the learned SC (Mines)- I, has stated that as per para 13 of the counter affidavit, it is admitted by the Investigating Officer that Rupak Kumar Choudhary was driving the vehicle on the date of the accident. 5. Heard. Admittedly Rupak kumar Choudhary was the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. Charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner stating that he was the driver of the offending vehicle. It is not denied that the petitioner is the owner of the vehicle. As noticed, in the counter-affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, it is admitted that Rupak Kumar Choudhary was driving the vehicle on the date of the accident and he was arrested and released on bail by the police. It is pertinent to note that when the Investigating Officer has admitted that the vehicle was being driven by Rupak Kumar Choudhary, then there is no justification or plausible explanation as to why charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner naming him as the driver of the vehicle. It is pertinent to note that when the Investigating Officer has admitted that the vehicle was being driven by Rupak Kumar Choudhary, then there is no justification or plausible explanation as to why charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner naming him as the driver of the vehicle. No material has been brought on record to show that the petitioner shared a common intention with Rupak Kumar Choudhary, the driver of the vehicle, for the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle or for causing of the accident by the driver, Rupak Kumar Choudhary. In view of the deposited facts, there is no material on record to hold the petitioner to be vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver, namely Rupak Kumar Choudhary. The factual matrix puts a big question mark regarding the manner and fairness of the investigation conducted by the concerned police officer. 6. The emergent facts lead to the inference that either the Investigating Officer had no knowledge of law or that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner with an oblique motive. Thus in view of the discussion made here in above, it is held that the continuation of the proceeding will only be an exercise in futility and abuse of the process of the court as well as of law. Thus, for the ends of justice the order dated 04.06.2018, 27.07.2018 and 07.03.2014 are, hereby, quashed. 7. As a result this writ petition stands allowed.