Ram Prakash Alias Ramphere and 3 Others vs Sri Akhand Pratap Singh,Ex-Circle Officer Risia Thru. Superintendent of Police,Bahraich and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 331 of 2024

¶3

Ram Prakash Alias Ramphere And 3 Others

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus Sri Akhand Pratap Singh,Ex-Circle Officer Risia Thru. Superintendent Of Police,Bahraich And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Manoj Sahu Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Gaurav Upadhyay, Saquib Suhel

¶6

Court No. - 20

¶7

HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

¶8

Objection filed by respondent no.2 is taken on record and reply to the objection of respondent no.1 is also taken on record.

¶9

Heard Shri Manoj Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Gaurav Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no.1 as well as Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent and perused the record.

¶10

This first appeal from order has been filed by the appellants-claimants against the judgment and order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bahraich (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.A.C.P. No.285 of 2017, whereby the claim of the appellant has been rejected.

¶11

The brief facts of the case, as stated by the appellants/complainants, are that on 06.03.2016, sometime during the night, one Ajeet Kumar Gupta @ Vijay Kumar, who was employed at a petrol pump, was returning home on a motorcycle bearing registration no. UP40K4878. He was carrying his voter identity card, Aadhaar card, identity card issued by the petrol pump, a diary, a mobile phone, and Rs. 25,000/-, along with an additional Rs. 3,500/- in his pocket. Between 9:00 and 10:00 p.m., he met with an accident involving a police vehicle, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries and died on the spot. It has been averred that the accident

¶12

FAFO No. 331 of 2024

¶13

2

¶14

happened by official car of the Circle Officer of the Police Station. Another person was also injured in the accident and was taken to the hospital by the police. The motorcycle as well as a bicycle, which is alleged to have involved in the incident, was taken into custody by the police. On the very next day, i.e. 07.03.2016, the postmortem was conducted, and thereafter the body was cremated by the police, as stated by the complainants. On the next morning, when the deceased did not return home, the family members began searching for him. It was only after three days, they were informed by one Mr. Rajesh Tiwari that an accident had taken place between a motorcycle and a police vehicle.

¶15

The claimants/appellants went to lodge a First Information Report, but the same was refused by the police. The complainants were left with no option but to approach the court by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, pursuant to the order of the court, an FIR was registered on 27.09.2017. In the earlier First Information Report, which was not lodged on the complaint of the complainants, a final report was submitted by the police on 14.05.2016. In the second FIR, which was registered pursuant to the order of the court, the police again submitted a final report on 08.11.2017, against which a protest petition has been filed and the same is still pending for consideration.

¶16

The police was aware of the accident and motorcycle was seized by the police, but no effort was made to inform the family members of the deceased. The police actually got the postmortem done and hurriedly cremated the body. When the claimants reached the police station even the clothes and other belongings of the deceased were not handed over to them.

¶17

An eyewitness Rajesh Tiwari informed about the accident and narrated the whole story and he further told the claimants that the police had recovered Rs.25,000/- from the pocket of the deceased and his other belongings, but because of the pressure, later he refused to give any statement.

¶18

With this background a claim petition was filed by the family members of the deceased before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal none appeared for the respondents inspite of sufficient service and vide impugned

¶19

FAFO No. 331 of 2024

¶20

3

¶21

judgement and order, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants. This order has been assailed by the appellants before this Court by means of the present appeal.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the claimants had adduced evidence of P.W.-1 along with other documentary evidence, which included postmortem report, letter written to the Prime Minister, Commissioner, Gonda Range, Chief Secretary and the first information reports. He further submits that the Tribunal had taken a very hyper technical view in rejecting the claim of the appellants on the ground that the number of the offending vehicle has not been mentioned in the complaint.

¶23

He further submits that the Tribunal has placed complete reliance on the reasons without appreciating the fact that the police would not conduct a fair investigation or file a charge-sheet against its own officer/personnel, particularly when the vehicle of the Circle Officer was involved in the alleged accident. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that the claimants neither provided the details of the offending vehicle nor the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶24

Per contra, Shri Gaurav Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no.1, who is a proforma party, has not raised any argument.

¶25

Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondent submits that first information report was lodged on 20.04.2016, whereas the accident was happened on 06.03.2016. He further submits that statement of the complainant regarding lodging of the first information report was incorrect. He also submits that the first information report was lodged by the complainant after 45 days in which Final Report has already been submitted.

¶26

He further submits that second application was a concocted story and first information report was lodged on 27.09.2014 in which first time involvement of the police vehicle was mentioned. He also submits that the alleged accident actually took place between a motorcycle and a bicycle, as stated by the witnesses.

¶27

FAFO No. 331 of 2024

¶28

4

¶29

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶30

It is evident that the deceased was returning home on a motorcycle when he met with an accident, the impact of which was such that he died on the spot. The motorcycle was seized by the police. Another person who was also involved in the accident was taken to the hospital by the police, and both the motorcycle and the bicycle were taken into custody by them. On the very next day, i.e. 07.03.2016, the postmortem was conducted, and thereafter the body was cremated by the police, as stated by the complainants.When the police had seized the motorcycle and admitted the other person in the hospital, they could have easily found out the details of the deceased and should have informed the family members of the deceased, but chose not to do so, they hurriedly cremated the body as well. This action of Police speaks volumes about the conduct.

¶31

As per the complainants, when the complainant reached the police station, neither the clothes nor the belongings of the deceased were handed over to them, and an FIR was stated to have been lodged in which a final report was submitted. Being dissatisfied, the complainants moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the court, finding merit in the application, directed registration of the FIR, in which again a final report was submitted against which a protest petition seems to have been pending. The claimants filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. Notices were issued, and surprisingly, respondent no.1 did not appear before the Tribunal, whereas the State was represented. The stand taken by the State was that the complainants had not produced the registration number of the offending vehicle or other relevant documents nor the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the driver had also not been impleaded as a party.

¶32

The Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants placing reliance upon the final report earlier submitted by the police. While passing the impugned order, the Tribunal failed to consider that, in the present case, where the offending vehicle belonged to the police, it was extremely difficult for the claimants to obtain the registration number and other documents relating to the said vehicle. Even the postmortem report was not provided to them, and it is stated by the claimants that the body was

¶33

FAFO No. 331 of 2024

¶34

5

¶35

not handed over to the family members and was allegedly cremated by the police, which has been denied by learned counsel for the respondents.

¶36

Apparently, it would not be feasible or possible for the claimants to ascertain the name of the driver of the offending vehicle, nor is it possible for them to produce the documents relating to the said vehicle. The reasons given by the Tribunal are, therefore, wholly unacceptable. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

¶37

In view of the above, judgment and order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.285 of 2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

¶38

Since the accident is of the year 2016, it is expected that the Tribunal may decide the claim after recording evidence and hearing the parties afresh, as expeditiously as possible.

¶39

Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed .

¶40

Let lower court record be immediately returned to Court concerned along with a copy of this order for necessary compliance.

¶41

(Prashant Kumar,J.)

¶42

April 28, 2026 Anupam S/-

¶43

Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ram Prakash Alias Ramphere and 3 Others v. Sri Akhand Pratap Singh,Ex-Circle Officer Risia Thru. Superintendent of Police,Bahraich and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prakash Alias Ramphere and 3 Others v. Sri Akhand Pratap Singh,Ex-Circle Officer Risia Thru. Superintendent of Police,Bahraich and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Directorate of Enforcement, Lko. Thru. Assistant Director vs Md. Iqbal Siddiqui

Tajwar Sultama and 29 Others vs Izhaar Alam and Others

Smt. Kusum Singh and 3 Others vs Akshay Gupta and 2 Others

Bal Krishna Gupta and 7 Others vs Yaar Mohammad

Harish Chandra vs Ram Surat and Ors.

Sushil Kumar Bajpai vs Rajendra Kumar Bajpai