Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8640 (UTT)

Mohd. Abbas v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-04-02

Alok Mahra

body2026
JUDGMENT : ALOK MAHRA, J. 1. The present Criminal Misc. Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing and setting-aside the cognizance/summoning order dated 08.07.2020, charge sheet dated 06.06.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1579 of 2020, State Vs. Mohd. Abbas , under Sections 420 , 467, 471 of IPC , pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. 2. Facts necessary, to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, as follows:- Applicant herein is the owner of the Truck in question, bearing registration no. UK04E/9756, which was involved in an accident case dated 25.03.2012. In this case, an FIR was lodged on the direction of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal on 05.11.2019 in which it was alleged that the applicant has filed a forged driving licence of his driver in Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Case No. 4 of 2018. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed under Sections 420 , 467, 471 of IPC against the applicant. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant was the owner of the truck and the driver of the vehicle namely Farman @ Saddam has provided the driving licence bearing Licence No. 3732/Farrukhabad/2005 to the applicant at the time when he was engaged as a driver by the applicant and the applicant, in a bonafide manner, submitted the same in the MACT concerned. It is further submitted that it was not possible for the applicant (owner of the vehicle) to get verification of the driving licence from the transport offices of the different parts of the country at the time of engaging the driver. Finding the driving licence to be genuine, the applicant submitted the same to the MACT concerned, thus, there is no fault on part of the applicant (owner of the vehicle) as he was not aware that the same was the fake licence and the driver himself is only responsible and liable for producing the fake license to the applicant. It is thus further submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically stated in the catena of judgments that if the driver produces a license, which on the face of it look genuine, the owner of the vehicle (employer) is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the license unless there is cause to believe otherwise. In this case also, there is no material on record to establish that the applicant had any cause to investigate about the authenticity of the driving license of the driver, which he submitted before the MACT concerned later. Therefore, no offence could be made out against the applicant under Sections 420 , 467, 471 of IPC against the applicant 4. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the applicant has committed a serious offence by producing the forged driving licence before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Tallital, District Nainital. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others , (2004) 3 SCC 297 , in its paragraph no. 110, has broadly dealt with the similar issue. For ready reference, paragraph no. 110 is extracted hereinbelow:- “110 . The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.” 7. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to make out any case of forgery or cheating against the applicant. In such circumstances, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the applicant would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1579 of 2020, State Vs. Mohd. Abbas , under Sections 420 , 467, 471 of IPC , pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, is hereby quashed, qua the applicant.