JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. K. Angami, learned PP for the State. 2. This is an application under section 482 CrPC for quashing and setting aside the FIR dated 13.03.2015 in GR No. 17/2015 corresponding to Wokha P.S. Case No. 12/15 under sections 279/336/337/338/304 (A) IPC, read with 185 M.V. Act which is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaland. 3. Facts leading to the institution of the present petition is that on 12.0.2015 at about 10:30 am one Maruti Alto vehicle met with an accident between Longsa and Santasuphen. And the vehicle rolled down about 300 ft approximately from the highway with 4 occupants which included the petitioner who was the driver of the said vehicle. One of the occupants, Mr. Kivikhu Swu expired due to head injury at Motso Memorial Hospital, the petitioner and Mr. Khumtsa Awomi both sustained grievous injury while Mr. Vikugha Assumi sustained simple injury. On receiving information of the accident a Suo moto report was made and an FIR was registered at Wokha P.S as Case No. 12/2015 on 13.03.2015 under 279/36/37/38/304(A) R/W 185 MV Act. The case was investigated into and during investigation one bottle full MC rum, 3 quarter bottle Vodka and 1 quarter MC Rum was recovered from the vehicle. The medical examination of the petitioner showed that the petitioner had consumed liquor and MVI report was that the vehicle was driven at a comparatively high speed and accordingly the charge-sheet under 279/36/37/38/304(A) R/W 185 MV Act was submitted against the accused petitioner, hence this petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/petitioner himself is a victim in the case, since he himself had sustained injuries along with the other passengers namely Khuntsa Awomi and Vikugha Assumi in the accident on 12.03.2013 where unfortunately, one of the passengers namely late Kivikhu Swu had died due to the injuries sustained. He submits that on perusal of the charge sheet it is clear that there is no element of rash or negligent driving since the Inspection report states that “Upon inspection of the vehicle and the accident site it may be ascertained that the accident occurred due to locking of the brakes. He submits that on perusal of the charge sheet it is clear that there is no element of rash or negligent driving since the Inspection report states that “Upon inspection of the vehicle and the accident site it may be ascertained that the accident occurred due to locking of the brakes. Locking of the brakes occur when hard steady pressure is applied on the brake pedal and when this happens the vehicle may change direction sharply either to the left or to the right and the rear tires may also swing back and forth causing the driver to lose control of the steering. In this case the driver, thinking the road to be straight and driving at the moderately high speed but unaware of the slight bent towards the right before the accident he may have suddenly applied hard pressure on the pedal while negotiating the bent causing the brakes to lock. As a result, the driver lost control of the vehicle and fell off the road”. No where does the report mention anything of rash or negligent driving. 5. The learned counsel further submits that though the accused/petitioner is alleged to have consumed alcohol, the nature of the report does not show the quantity of the alcohol consumed. Under Section 185 of the MV Act the limit prescribed is that there should be at least 30 mg alcohol per 100 ml of blood detected by breath analyzer. There was also no breath analyzer test or blood test done on the accused and no proper procedure was followed. He further submits that there is no proof of rash or negligent driving since there was no witness except one of the passengers (P.W.-2) cited in the charge-sheet who has not mentioned that the petitioner was driving in a rash or negligent manner in his statement recorded by the case I.O. The learned counsel has also mentioned that the news paper report annexed in the petition show that the road condition where the accident occurred is very bad and due to this many accidents and deaths have occurred at that stretch of road. 6. 6. The learned counsel also submits that though the offence under which the accused has been charged are not compoundable offences under Section 230 Cr.P.C, this cannot bar the court from quashing the case against the accused under section 482 Cr.P.C. He submits that in the course of proceedings, the brother of the deceased has submitted a compromise deed dated 04.07.2022 wherein it is stated that the accident was not because of negligence on the part of the accused/petitioner and that they have made peace with themselves. They do not want any third person to pursue the case against the petitioner and that the continuance of the case would be a sign of disrespect to the departed soul. 7. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Ravi Kapur vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 9 SCC 24, IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company vs. Pearl Beverage Ltd reported in (2021) 7 SCC 704 , State of Karnataka vs. Satish reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 , Braham Dass vs. State of H.P reported in (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 406, Bachunhai Hassanalli Karyani vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1972) 4 SCC 758 , Shiji Alias Pappu and others v. Radhiks and another reported in (2011) 10 SCC 705 . 8. Mr. K. Angami, learned PP on the other hand submits that from the medical report it is clear that the driver of the vehicle was under the influence of liquor and considering the facts that the stretch of the road where the accident had occurred was in a bad condition, the driver of the vehicle had the responsibility for driving with extra care wherein the Investigation report shows that he was driving in a moderately high speed under the influence of liquor, which is evident from the fact that liquor bottles were seized from the accident vehicle. Driving at such a high speed in such a bad condition road shows that there is a prima facie case against the accused/ petitioner. The learned PP also submitted that regarding the non-compliance of the procedure under section 185 IPC by the Case I.O., should be raised during the trial before the learned Trial Court and not at this stage. 9. The learned PP also submitted that regarding the non-compliance of the procedure under section 185 IPC by the Case I.O., should be raised during the trial before the learned Trial Court and not at this stage. 9. Having heard the submissions made by both the parties I have perused the documents on record which includes the charge sheet, the medical report along with the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) and the compromise deed executed by the brother of the deceased Kivikhu Swu. 10. I find that the MVI report has not mentioned anything that would indicate that the accident was due to any rash or negligent driving. The opinion of the MVI is that the driver driving at a moderately high speed… unaware of the slight bent towards the right may have suddenly applied hard pressure on the pedal while negotiating the bent causing the brakes to lock. The only eyewitness i.e., one of the passengers of the accident vehicle makes no mention of any rash or negligent driving of the vehicle. The medical report so as to verify whether the petitioner was drunk while driving at the time of the accident also shows that no test was done as per the requirement or procedure laid out under section 185 Cr.P.C. The relatives of the deceased victim in the accident do not desire that the driver of the vehicle/petitioner be prosecuted for the accident. 11. The Apex Court in State of Karnataka vs. Satish (supra) held “4 . Merely because the truck was being driven at a "high speed" does not bespeak of either "negligence" or "rashness" by itself. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could give any indication, even approximately, as to what they meant by "high speed". "High speed" is a relative term. It was for the prosecution to bring on record material to establish as to what it meant by "high speed" in the facts and circumstances of the case. In a criminal trial, the burden of providing everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. There is no such statutory exception pleaded in the present case. In the absence of any material on the record, no presumption of "rashness" or "negligence" could be drawn by invoking the maxim "res ipsa loquitur".’ 12. In Bachunhai Hassanalli Karyani vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) the apex court held that ‘Drunkenness cannot be said to be conclusively proved, unless urine or blood test is carried out. Mere smelling of alcohol, unsteady gaits, dilation of pupils and incoherence of speech is not enough." 13. The parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 for quashing the FIR against the accused under 482 Cr.P.C includes: (i)If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused and(ii) If the allegations made in the FIR/complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence, and do not build any case against the accused. 14. In view of the above observations and decisions of the Hon’ble Apex court cited above, I am of the considered view that the ingredients of the alleged offence under sections 279/336/337/338/304 (A) IPC, read with 185 M.V. Act have not been prima facie made out and thus find it fit, in exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash and set aside the FIR dated 13.03.2015 and the proceedings in GR No. 17/2015 corresponding to Wokha P.S. Case No. 12/15 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wokha, Nagaland. 15. CRL.REVN/8/2021 accordingly stands allowed and disposed.