The petitioner was convicted under section 279 Indian Penal Code, i.e. “Rash driving or riding on a public way. i.e., Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment.” Section 304-A IPC, “Causing death by negligence. –Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment.” Sections 3 of the motor vehicles act, “No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle.” Section 181, “Whoever drives a motor vehicle in contravention of section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment or with fine.”
Section 146, “Necessity for insurance against third party risk, no person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person.” Section 196 of the motor vehicles act, “Driving uninsured vehicle. Whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of section 146 shall be punishable with imprisonment or with fine along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner only. Therefore a petition was filed to quash FIR No. 152 for the above which was registered on the 11th of July 2019.
This judgment and final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on the 20th of July 2021 by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill in the case of Neeraj v/s state of Haryana and others CRM-M-16329-2021, Mr. Vikas Saroha represented as the advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Singh Chaudhary represented for the state of Haryana, the court proceedings were held through video conference due to the covid-19 Pandemic.
The following are the facts of the case, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner owned a maxi truck and however, on the 7th of July 2019 he sold this truck to Mr. Vinod Singh. Mr. Vinod executed an affidavit that was not considered by the investigation team during the presentation of the challan. The Counsel for the state objected the same as he claimed that the present petition is not to be maintained because the challan already stands presented and in case of the petitioner states any grievance for the same it can only be dealt with when the court seizes its proceedings.
The court concluded that “Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to withdraw the present petition with the liberty to avail his remedy, as per law. Dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.”