Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2025 DIGILAW 142 (SC)

D. Gandharuban v. State

2025-01-07

HRISHIKESH ROY, S.V.N.BHATTI

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. G.Sivabalamurugan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D.Kumanan, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the parties are considered together with the submission that was recorded by this Court on 02.01.2024, when notice was issued. 3. The State counsel has drawn this Court's attention to the reasoning given by the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Salem in the Order dated 11.07.2023 (Annexure-P.19), to hold that the petitioners can also be charged for abetment of the offence under Section 304-A IPC, for which the period of limitation is three years from the date of the occurrence, i.e., 29.09.2017. 4. The following reasoning is relevant for our consideration: "15. This Court is of the view that the submissions of the petitioner that only section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 charged against the accused in the Final Report dated 10.04.2018 should be considered for the purpose of arriving the period of limitation in the case is totally not convincing. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire occurrence that took place on 29.09.2017 should be taken as the cause of action giving rise for the First Information Report in Crime No.843 of 2017. Only upon investigation into the actual occurrence, the role of the petitioners herein came to light. 16. Solely because the driver of the Maruti Car alleged to have caused the occurrence on 29.09.2017 is a Minor, the case of Nikhilesh was split up from the present Final Report for being tried separately under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act which lays down the special procedure for trial of offences committed by children in conflict with law. The petitioners cannot be permitted to take advantage of the beneficial legislation and absolve themselves of their liability in the occurrence on 29.09.2017. The reasoning given by the counsel for the petitioners that only if these petitioners were tried along with the Minor, then the period of limitation will be 3 years is unacceptable. 17. In this case, the prosecution alleges that Master. Sarvesh lost his life due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Maruthi Car; whereas, it is extremely surprising that the petitioners herein were charged only of the offence u/s.180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the Final Report. 17. In this case, the prosecution alleges that Master. Sarvesh lost his life due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Maruthi Car; whereas, it is extremely surprising that the petitioners herein were charged only of the offence u/s.180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in the Final Report. C.C. No. 96 of 2019 is presently at the stage of 'hearing on charges'; therefore, even at this stage this Court has ample powers to peruse the records and independently state the substance of accusation for the offences actually made out against the petitioners. Therefore, although this Court cannot undo the wrong of the complainant by choosing to prefer the Final Report only for offence Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the doors to Justice are not closed yet. 18. At this juncture, it is also important to note that when the counsel for the petitioner was questioned about the status of the case against the Minor before the Juvenile Justice Board, he ignored to touch upon the case against the Minor or its status. He repeatedly claimed that it is no way related to the case at hand. 19. In consideration of all the above, this Court holds that for computation of the period of limitation, all the offences made out as a result of the occurrence on 29.09.2017 should be considered. In this background, the offence with more severe punishment which will be attracted prima facie based on the facts of the case and as per the first Information Report is offence u/s. 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is a possibility that the petitioners herein can also be held liable for abetment of the offence u/s. 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or more severe offence. 20. For the offence u/s. 304A of IPC, 1860 the period of limitation as per section 468(2)(c) and section 468(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is three years from the date of the alleged occurrence. In the present case, the date of occurrence is 29.09.2017 and the final report was filed for the first time by the complainant before this Court on 18.12.2018 i.e., well within three years from the date of the alleged occurrence. Therefore, the Final Report in Crime No. 843 of 2017 has been filed well within the period of limitation as per section 468 of the Code. Therefore, the Final Report in Crime No. 843 of 2017 has been filed well within the period of limitation as per section 468 of the Code. It has been time and again held by the Constitutional Courts in various cases that the power vested with the Judicial Magistrate u/s.258, Cr.P.C., 1973 should be exercised sparingly and judiciously. The discretion cannot be used in mechanical manner resulting in gross injustice." 5. Having considered the above basis, the cognizance of the crime on the summons issued against the petitioners, cannot be faulted at this stage. 6. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. Our order and the above reasoning should be understood solely for the present proceedings and will have no bearing for either the prosecution or the defence, in any future proceedings in the case. 8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.