Allowed

Virendra Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Jul 2022CRLMP/795/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petition to quash a second FIR arising from a multi-accident series. The Court directed the trial court to club both FIRs and frame charges under Sections 304-A and 279 of the IPC, rejecting the petitioner's contention for Section 304 IPC charges.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to club both FIRs and frame charges under Sections 304-A and 279 of the IPC.

Virendra Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 795/2022

¶4

Virendra Yadav S/o Shri Mahendra Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kaneli, P.s. Shahpur, District Bhojpur, Bihar. (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Udaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Pappu Bhat S/o Shri Bhairulal Bhat, R/o Bhuwana, Sukher, District Udaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Mohit Sharma
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
		Mr. S.K. Ojha,for the complainant

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

01/07/2022

¶14

By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the FIR No.447/2021 registered on 18.09.2021 at Police Station Sukher, Udaipur 14:50.

¶15

The facts relevant are that a vehicle being driven by the petitioner met with an accident firstly with a motorcycle (RJ 27 As 3302) due to which one Harish Chandra Paliwal passed away. His nephew lodged an FIR alleging that an offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code has been committed by the petitioner, the FIR was registered as FIR NO.446/2021 on 18.08.2021 at 14:39.

¶16

It is to be noted that the same vehicle then, ran over a scooty (two wheeler – RJ 27 AD 8190) due to which two persons succumbed instantaneously. An FIR (No.447/2021) alleging offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code came to be

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-795/2022]

¶19

registered on 18.09.2021 at 14:50 in the very same Police Station.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the second FIR which was registered at 14:50 pm is not maintainable and subsequent FIR being registered at a later point of time arising out of the same series of events deserves to be quashed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. (Writ Petiton (Criminal) No.5 of 2013) and in the case of T.T.Antony vs State of Kerala & Ors (Appeal (Crl.) No.689 of 2001) .

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand argued that the petitioner’s contention is not tenable inasmuch as these two FIRs involve two separate accidents involving two different vehicles. He added that there is difference of few second in both the accidents and even the deceased persons are different.

¶22

Mr. Ojha, learned counsel for the complainant on instructions submitted that the FIR in question has been lodged under misunderstanding and misconception of law and as a matter of fact, the same should have been filed alleging negligence of the driver and hence, the FIR should have been registered under Section 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code not under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the contents of the FIRs particularly because there is no allegation of intentional act causing death or bodily injury constituting an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and also in light of the consent given by Mr. Ojha,

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMP-795/2022]

¶26

learned trial Court is directed to club both the FIRs and frame charges under Sections 304-A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code and try the petitioner accordingly.

¶27

The petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶28

The stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶30

91-Arvind/-

Virendra Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Ganga Vishan

Smt. Dhanwantri Devi Vs the District Magistrate

Tejmal Vs the Rent Appellate Tribunal

Gurubux Singh and Anr. Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Jawahar Vidyapeeth Kanore Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Rampal Kaur @ Rimpi Vs Board of Revenue at Ajmer and Ors.