Dismissed

Purshottam Eaknath Nemade v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2013WP/19/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Writ Petition challenging criminal proceedings for rash driving. The Court held that special circumstances for quashing were not made out as the petitioner was a party to the accident and evidence existed against him, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing the proceedings under IPC Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 read with Sections 66/192(A), 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act dismissed.

Purshottam Eaknath Nemade Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

25 wp.19.13

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 19 OF 2013

¶5

PURSHOTTAM S/O EAKNATH NEMADE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Gholap Ajit M. APP for Respondent No.1 : Mr. V.G.Shelke.

¶8

CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 18th June, 2013.

¶9

O R D E R:

¶10

1 Heard both the sides.

¶11

2 Seen the record, which includes copy of the charge-sheet and papers of investigation.

¶12

3 Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is the Petitioner, who had given report to the police after accident. But, the crime was not registered on the basis of the report given by the Petitioner and subsequently, one constable gave report against both the Petitioner and the rickshaw driver blaming both of them for the accident. He submitted that there are some police statements of passengers of auto rickshaw showing that it was a fault of rickshaw driver. He submitted that there are the reports of the R.T.O office showing that the brakes of auto rickshaw

¶13

2 25 wp.19.13

¶14

was not working. But technically, the car of the Petitioner was in good condition. On the basis of this circumstance, he submitted that the proceedings as against the Petitioner needs to be quashed.

¶15

4 For quashing of the proceeding, some special circumstances are required to be made out. It is not disputed that the car of the Petitioner was involved in the accident. It is not disputed that few passengers have blamed the Petitioner for the accident. Copy of the spot panchanama is there and it shows that the car of the Petitioner was present at the crossing point and the auto rickshaw was emerging from a road in the square. The point of impact is almost near the front portion of the car as per the spot panchanama. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is nothing against the Petitioner. Quashing of the proceedings at this stage, would amount to denial of the opportunity to the witnesses and the State to give evidence against the Petitioner, which can be seen in the papers of investigation. No case is made out for quashing of the proceeding filed for offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 66/192(A), 184 of the Indian Motor Vehicle Act.

¶16

5 In the result, the petition stands dismissed.

¶17

ndm

Purshottam Eaknath Nemade v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purshottam Eaknath Nemade v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Machine Tools and Equipments Thr. Partners Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Deepali Sunildatta Yampure and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bhanudas Uttam Vighne and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sudhakar Govind Mohite and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh Paritiya Shriramwar Vs Pooja @ Shrilata Ganesh Shriramwar

Prakash Bandu Sable Vs Sahebrao Dagdu Sonwane and Another