1 2025:CGHC:17804-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 217 of 2025 Mahaveer Sinha S/o Laluram Sinha Aged About 68 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Sagona P.S.- Thankhamariya Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 2 - Nohar Yadav Head Constable No. 422 Police Station Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 3 - Pradeep Sinha S/o Mahaveer Sinha Aged About 44 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Sagona P.S.- Thankhamariya Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) 4 - Dashrath Nishad S/o Bhakku Nishad Aged About 62 Years R/o Village Sagona P.S.- Thankhamariya Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.04.24 10:40:53 +0530 2 21.04.2025 1. Proceedings of this matter have been taken through video conferencing. 2. Heard Mr.Varun Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the order taken cognizance passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara in Criminal Case (ANNEXURE P/1). No. 22/2025 on 06/01/2025 (ANNEXURE P/1). 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the First Information Report (F.I.R.) dated 06/11/2024 registered against the petitioner bearing Crime No. 613/2024 at Police Station Bemetara District- Bemetara (C.G.) for offence U/S 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and further this Hon'ble Court may also kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash final report/chargesheet No. 607/2024 dated 30/12/2024 (ANNEXURE P/2) filed before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara for offence U/S 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 3 10.3 Any other relief may also be granted by this Hon'ble court in facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. Facts of the case are that on 20/12/2023 upon receiving the MLC Report from the Hospital namely Balaji Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd. regarding the death of the patient namely Arjun Ram Nishad in Road Accident the Police Station Pandari registered the Accidental Morgue Intimation No. 0/122/2023. As per the MLC Report the accident took place in the village Pikri under Police Station Bemetara on 08/11/2023 at about 07.00 PM. The deceased was admitted on 28/11/2023 where he died on 20/12/2023. The police station Pandari (Mova) got the post mortem conducted in which the cause of death was reported to be "Accidental". The aforesaid Inquest Report was transferred to the Police Station Bemetara on 15/05/2024 where the Unnatural Death No. 58/2024 was registered. 5. After registration of such Unnatural Death No. 58/2024 the impugned First information Report under Section 304-A IPC on 06/11/2024 on the basis of alleged hearsay statements of the family members of the deceased. The Police of Police Station Bemetara also collected information on 20/12/2024 that prior to being admitted to the aforesaid Balaji Hospital the deceased was admitted to one Khushi Hospital, Mandi Road Neora District Raipur where the deceased came on 08/11/2023 after the alleged accident and was taken home after primary treatment. On 09/11/2023 the deceased was again admitted in the aforesaid Khushi Hospital where he was treated upto 28/11/2023 and then referred to the aforesaid Balaji Hospital. The Death Summary prepared by the Balaji Hospital also mentions that the deceased fell from 4 the bike on 08/11/2023. Accordingly the case of the prosecution is stated that allegedly the deceased namely Arjun Nishad who used to run motor garage, where the Respondent No.3/Pradeep Sinha gave his motorbike bearing registration No. CG25-G-2124 for some repair work. It is further alleged that, on 08/11/2023 the father of the Respondent No. 3 Pradeep Sinha who is the petitioner in the present case came to the shop of the deceased and thereafter for some work the deceased and the petitioner took the motorbike of the Respondent No. 3 and while they were on their way to village Pikri, they met with an accident, thereafter the Respondent No. 3 went on the spot and took the deceased to Khushi Hospital Bemetara. However, no such statement of Pradeep Sinha during inquest or under 161 CrPC has been recorded. 6. The case against the Petitioner is one of false implication for the reason that the statements of entire family members of the deceased is that they were told by the Respondent Pradeep Sinha that his motorcycle that caused the accident was being driven by the the Petitioner. The aforesaid Respondent Pradeep Sinha was called to deposit the ownership documents of the motorcycle by the police under Section 91 CrPC. The aforesaid respondent deposited the documents and signed on the documents. The aforesaid Pradeep Sinha who is also the son of the Petitioner has not intimated that who was driving the vehicle. However, clandestinely with an evil design to somehow implicate the Petitioner the Petitioner was called by the police on the basis of such documents as driver of the offending vehicle/bike and was asked to deposit the license to which the Petitioner informed that he is not having any license. The Petitioner was not informed that in the notice the police has mentioned 5 that they have been informed by the Respondent Pradeep Sinha that vehicle was being driven by the Petitioner whereas the aforesaid Pradeep Sinha has not given any information. 7. On the basis of such information given by the Petitioner, he was arrested and released on bail on 30/12/2024 itself. The impugned challan has been prepared and submitted under Section 304-A IPC on 06/01/2025. The Petitioner is now being prosecuted in criminal court vide Criminal Case no. 22/2025 as well as facing civil liability under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. The Petitioner has been subjected to false prosecution and prays for protection from this Hon'ble Court. 8. The Assistant Sub-Inspector namely Deenanath Sinha recorded the statements of the family of the deceased in the proceedings of Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedurein which it is clearly seen that the statements have been recorded back dated as some of the statements have recorded on 17/05/2024 and some of the statements of the family members of the deceased have been recorded on 04/11/2024. The petitioner thereafter received notice from the Motor Accidental Claim Tribunal, Bemetara in which it was alleged that due to rash and negligence driving of the petitioner the son and husband of the claimants namely Late. Arjun Nishad died and the claimants have filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation from the petitioner for the sum of Rs. 40,00,000/-on account of death of Arjun Nishad. 9. The petitioner submitted complaint before the Superintendent of 6 Police, Bemetara on 09/01/2025 alongwith his personal afÏdavit that he has been falsely implicated in the present case of accident. The whole story is being concocted by the Respondent No. 2 and the private respondent No. 4 as from the very first day they knew that the vehicle is insured and they will not get proper compensation if they will impleaded the registered owner of the vehicle as the vehicle on the date of incident was insured, therefore the petitioner has been impleaded as driver. It is pertinent to mention herein that the deceased was carrying valid motor vehicle licence which the police has not seized just to implicate the present petitioner. Hence, this petition. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of incident is 08/11/2023 and the merg was registered on 20/12/2023 against unknown person and even in the merg, there is no description of vehicle or any person is mentioned whereby after the delay of more than eleven month, the first information report (F.I.R.) was registered and first time the name of the petitioner was mentioned which shows the conduct of the complainant and the prosecution. He further submits that the first information report (F.I.R.) has not been lodged by the private respondents but has been lodged by the Station House OfÏcer who treating himself as complainant has lodged the report straightaway against the petitioner which is abuse of process of law. He also submits that the whole story has been made up just to implicate the petitioner, so that compensation can be recovered from the petitioner. The deceased was having the valid driving licence and the vehicle was duly insured. He contended that in the statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the son of the petitioner ie., Respondent. No. 3 it is shown that the petitioner was 7 driving the vehicle whereby the Respondent No. 3 marked his signature on the document where it is only written that he has to submit the registration documents of the vehicle and son of the petitioner was not aware that in his statement allegation will be leveled against his father of driving the vehicle. He further contended that the statement of witness in the proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been recorded after the first information report (F.I.R.) i.e., on May, 2024 was registered and not during merg was being recorded which clearly indicates the faulty investigation carried out by the prosecution agency. The prosecution made the story after 1 year that the petitioner took the deceased with him to buy spare parts and there they met with an accident. As such, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and order taking cognizance, FIR and final report/charge-sheet deserve to be quashed/set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel appearing for respondent No.1/State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the material available on record. 13. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with writ petition and also perusing the order taking cognizance dated 6.1.2025 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bemetara, copy of FIR and final report, we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and 8 is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu