In this criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioner challenged an order setting aside a charge under Section 304-A IPC. The High Court held the petition devoid of merit and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.Misc. No.M-2938 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc. No.M-2938 of 2011 Date of Decision: 31.01.2011
Shankar Lal
...Petitioner
Vs.
Chander Kala & Anr.
...Respondents
BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
DAYA CHAUDHARY,J.
Crl.M.No.5417 of 2011
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl.M.No.M-2938 of 2011
The present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 9.112010 annexed with the petition as Annexure P.4, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon, whereby charge framed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gurgaon under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code has been set aside and trial court has been directed to take some more evidence for reconsideration of framing of charge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only a driver and it was the duty of the contractors to adopt the safety measures and petitioner being driver was not supposed to observe any safety
Crl.Misc. No.M-2938 of 2011
2
measure. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that finding has been given in favour of petitioner but still the case has been remanded for reconsideration without any reason.
I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order as well as other material available on record.
The argument of the learned counsel that the petitioner being driver has nothing to do with safety measures and the same was to be taken by the lease-holder only, is not worth convincing as it is a matter of evidence which is to be seen at the time of trial. The direction has been issued to the trial court vide order dated 9.11.2010 to reconsider the framing of charge on the basis of evidence already available on the file and after taking into consideration some more evidence, if produced by the complainant.
As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the safety measures is concerned nothing has come on record while framing of charge whether the petitioner being driver was not supposed to observe any safety measure. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner which requires interference with the impugned order as the trial court has been directed only to reconsider the evidence, if any, on the part of the complainant. The petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed.
31.01.2011 rp
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference with the order setting aside the charge framed under Section 304-A IPC is warranted under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the direction to the trial court to take more evidence justifies quashing the accident-related charge.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shankar Lal
Chander Kala
DAYA CHAUDHARY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
