Allowed

Pratik Vinay Pataki and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Mar 2017WP/630/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash FIR for rash and negligent driving. Court held offenses compoundable nature and victims compensated but imposed heavy costs due to violation of flyover ban. Petition allowed with condition of deposit.

What did the court decide?

The Rule is made absolute after depositing Rs. 15,000/- as costs with the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund within one month.

Pratik Vinay Pataki and Anr. Vs the State of… — Motor Accident Claims | Bombay HC (2017)

wp-630.17

sng

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.630 of 2017

¶5

Pratik Vinay Pataki and Another. .. Petitioners Vs The State of Maharashtra and Another. .. Respondents

¶6

Ms. Anjali Patil for the Petitioners. Shri K.V. Saste, APP for the Respondent No.1. Shri Arun K. Rajput for the Respondent No.2.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ DATED : 9TH MARCH 2017

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Rule. The learned APP waives service for the first Respondent and the Advocate for the second Respondent waives service. Forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶10

The prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for quashing First Information Report (FIR) registered at the instance of the second Respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that the Petitioners who are shown as the Accused were plying their respective motor-cycles on the J.J. Flyover in Mumbai in a rash and negligent manner. They gave a dash to the motor cab of

wp-630.17

sng

the second Respondent which was carrying passengers. The contention is that though there was a prohibition on two wheeler entering J.J. Flyover, the Petitioners entered the J.J.Flyover and while plying their respective motor-cycles rashly and negligently, they gave a dash to the motor cab. As a result, damage is caused to the motor cab of the first informant. Both the Petitioners were injured and Shri Shubham Ramnarayanji Bangad and Shri Agraj Sudesh Doshi were also injured.

¶15

The second Respondent has filed an affidavit dated 7^th February 2017 stating that the Petitioners have compensated him on account of damage caused to his motor cab. He has stated that none of the passengers in the Taxi were injured. He has, therefore, recorded his no objection for quashing the proceedings. Both Shri Shubham Ramnarayanji Bangad and Shri Agraj Sudesh Doshi have also filed their respective affidavits on 17^th February 2017. Both of them have stated that the Petitioners have compensated them by paying for medical expenses incurred by them for treating the minor injuries suffered by them.

¶16

Out of the three offences for which the chargesheet is filed, the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 are compoundable offences. Considering the nature of the allegations, it cannot be said that the offences alleged against the Petitioners are against the society

wp-630.17

sng

at large. Therefore, this is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing the offence especially when the injuries sustained by the victims are minor injuries for which they have been compensated.

¶21

However, we find that the Petitioners were admittedly plying the two wheelers on the J.J. Flyover though there is a complete prohibition on plying the two wheelers on the J.J.Flyover. We, therefore, propose to impost costs of Rs.15,000/- on the Petitioners payable to the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund.

¶22

6. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

(a) The Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (i) subject to condition of the Petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousand) by way of costs with the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund within a period of one month from today. The prayer clause

¶25

(i) reads thus:

¶26

“(i) The C.R. No.211 of 2016 registered at M.R.A. Marg Police Station may be quashed with the Consent of the Complainant.”

wp-630.17

sng

(b) If receipt of payment is not produced within a period of one month from today, the Petition shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court;

¶31

¶32

(d) For reporting compliance, the Petition shall be listed on 13^th April 2017 under the caption of “Directions”. (SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J) ( A.S. OKA, J )

Pratik Vinay Pataki and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratik Vinay Pataki and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

M/S. Blossom Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Patil Kurdwadi Barshi Toll Ways Pvt. Ltd. through Shri. Dhanaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.

Kumar @ Appaso Kallappa Kumasage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sunil Keru Gaikwad through Shaila Sunil Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra

Akash Namdeo Koyate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kamal Chamanlal Saigal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.