09/10/2014 Shri V.D. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant. Ms. Chitra

(Smt. Geeta Vs. State of M.P. & anr.) 1
M.Cr.C. No. 6200/2013
09/10/2014
Shri V.D. Sharma, Advocate for the applicant.
Ms. Chitra Saxena, Panel Lawyer for the respondents/ State.
The applicant has filed this application under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and sought
relief to quash FIR and Criminal Case No. 52095/2013 pending
against her before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior, under
Sections 304(A) of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act,
1988.
On the report of Mahendra Singh, crime No. 260/2012 was
registered at police station Gola ka Mandir, Gwalior on 11.05.2012
under Section 304(A) of IPC against the driver of Car Maruti Swift
No. MP07 CC 7888, which was driven by a lady. IT is alleged that the
said Car dashed Sugna Devi, due to which, she sustained grievous
injuries. She was being taken to J.A. Hospital, where injured Sugna
Devi was declared dead. In the FIR, it is also stated that Sunil,
Pradeep, Hradesh also were present at the time of incident. The
incident occurred near Mela Ground Park, Gwalior.
Whereas the report was lodged at 07:15 AM and reportedly the
incident took place at 06:00 AM. On the basis of this report, a
Criminal Case No. 52095/2013 has been filed against the applicant
Geeta W/o Ramesh Sharma, aged 43 years, which is now pending
before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior. The applicant claimed
that she has been falsely implicated by recording the statements of
Sunil, Pradeep and Hridesh. It is also stated that the Constable No.
1847 Anand Pratap lodged a report at police station Kampoo on
(Smt. Geeta Vs. State of M.P. & anr.) 2
M.Cr.C. No. 6200/2013
11.05.2012 at 12:30 noon that he was posted at police station Gola Ka
Mandir, Gwalior. He had gone to the dead house (mortuary) for the
postmortem of deceased Sarla in connection with Merg No. 16/2012.
Car No. MP07 CC 7888 was parked outside the mortuary. The
vehicle was seized by Mahendra Kumar Deewan and directed the
constable Anand Pratap to shift the Car to Kampoo Police Station with
the help of the driver. When the Car was being shifted to police
station, Kampoo, near the gate of J.A. Hospital, four persons stopped
the Car, damaged it and later set it on fire. On behalf of the applicant,
it is also alleged that the applicant's Car was used to shift the injured
Sugna Devi to the Hospital and the name of the applicant was later
introduced by the police station. Statements recorded after so many
days. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to relief of quashment of the
FIR and subsequent criminal proceeding.
The learned Panel Lawyer Ms. Chitra Saxena, vehemently
opposed and submitted that the witnesses Hridesh Jayant, Sunil and
Kaushal have clearly stated the name of the applicant in their
statements, as the person who was driving the vehicle at the time of
accident. The vehicle which was driven by the lady is mentioned in the
FIR as well as in the statements. It is also submitted by the learned
Panel Lawyer that the said vehicle was damaged and burnt by
unknown persons because it was the same vehicle which was involved
in the accident. The applicant, therefore, is not entitled to any relief
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C..
On perusal of the record, it is found that the accident occurred
by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car No. MP07 CC
(Smt. Geeta Vs. State of M.P. & anr.) 3
M.Cr.C. No. 6200/2013
7888, due to which Smt. Sugna Devi sustained injuries and shifted to
the Hospital. The statements of Sunil Kumar, Kok Singh and Ravi
Kant Chaurasiya are clear in this regard. The statements of Mahesh
Kumar recorded on 11.05.2012 indicates that Sugna Devi was injured
due to the rash driving of the lady driver of Car bearing No. MP07 CC
7888. Statement of Pradeep Jain also supports the same story. The
statements of Hradesh Jayant recorded on 14.09.2012 includes the
name of Geeta Sharma as the female driver of the Car. In the true
typed copy (Page No. 28), part of the statement that “Geeta Sharma
was driving the vehicle” is missing. This typed copy is produced on
behalf of the applicant.
On perusal of the postmortem report dated 11.05.2012, the
cause of death is shown as shock and haemorrhage as a result of
thoraco-abdominal injuries. But, it also shows that she received nine
injuries on her body. Merely because the police statement show that
she sustained head injury does not make the prosecution case weak.
The injuries mentioned in the postmortem include injury of left side of
face extending from lateral part of left eye to left ear, right arm upper
half, right elbow of forearm, dorseem of right hand, right thigh, left
side of upper part of clavicular region, right side upper part of
abdomen, abrasion on left arm laterally extending from shoulder to
downwards, with grazing extending from lower end of left arm to
dorseen of hand.
Learned counsel for the applicant relied on Rajiv Thapar &
ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor reported in 2013 Cr.L.R. (SC) 643, in
which, it is held that:-
(Smt. Geeta Vs. State of M.P. & anr.) 4
M.Cr.C. No. 6200/2013
“(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sec. 482Quashing of criminal proceedings-Complaint lodged for
causing death by poison and subsequently raised the
allegation of strangulation – Post mortem and disease –
No medical corroboration of fact of strangulation –
Evidence of cordial relations between the families –
Facts raises doubt that the complaint was lodged with
malice and ulterior motive – Held, Proceedings
quashed.”
In the present circumstances, the citation relied by the learned
counsel for the applicant is not attracted as the facts of the present case
is different.
The argument put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant
that witnesses claim that the injured suffered head injury but in the
postmortem it is shown that death has been caused due to thoraco-abdominal injuries does not have any adverse effect on the
prosecution story, at least not at this stage.
The petition, therefore, lacks substance and is dismissed.
(S.K. Palo)
Judge
Abhi*

Download Report