THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7441 of 2009 BETWEEEN: 1. Smt. Baayaapu Lalitha, W/o.Late Jangi Reddy & 2 others. … Petitioners AND 1. The State of A.P. & 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.7441 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners 1 to 3 are dependents/legal heirs of B.Jangi Reddy who died in road accident within the limits of Chandrayangutta Police Station, Hyderabad. The accident took place on the night of 6/7-2-2006 when the deceased was travelling in his Maruthi Zen Car bearing No.AP 11P 793. The accident took place at mid night near Bandalaguda check post. As per the original charge sheet in CC.No.385 of 2008 on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad filed by the police against the accused, K.Jangaiah drove Maruthi Alto Car bearing No. AP 29E 5546 in rash and negligent manner and dashed Maruthi Zen Car bearing No.AP 11P 793 in rash and negligent manner due to which the deceased who was driving Zen Car lost control and hit the car to a road side tree and it resulted in death of the deceased. The Police filed charge sheet against K.Jangaiah for offences punishable under Section 337 and 304- A I.P.C. The petitioners 1 to 3 filed O.P.No.345 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for compensation for death of the deceased against persons relating to both the cars. During pendency of the criminal case, the 3rd respondent, who is insurer of the opposite vehicle, appears to have approached the Police and moved the Police stating that the insured car was not involved in the vehicle and that it is a case of car of the deceased meeting with the accident by dashing against a road side tree and that with a view to make a claim against the insurance company, opposite car was falsely implicated in this case. Thereupon, the Police moved the lower Court with an application for permission for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. in view of the facts brought to their notice by the insurance company. The lower Court granted permission and after making further investigation, the Police filed 2nd final report before the lower Court to the effect that the deceased, who was driving his car lost control over the vehicle and hit a tree and sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. It is stated by the petitioners’ counsel that basing on the 2nd final report of the Police, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed their claim against the persons and insurer of the alleged opposite vehicle and that the petitioners filed appeal against the said order of the tribunal and it is pending in this Court. 2. It is contended by the petitioners’ counsel placing reliance on REETA NAG Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL[1] a n d MITHABHAI PASHABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT[2] of the Supreme Court that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction or power to direct the Police for re-investigation as distinguished from further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. First of all, I would like to point out that the petitioners, who are legal heirs of the deceased have no locus standi to file this criminal petition. Secondly, they cannot get any relief in this criminal petition behind the back of the accused K.Jangaiah, who was benefited by virtue of the 2nd report filed by the Police before the Magistrate. Simply because the petitioners apprehended adverse result before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the basis of the 2nd final report of the Police; they cannot re-agitate about the investigation by filing this petition before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. After all, finding of the criminal Court is not binding on any civil Court including the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Therefore, result of the criminal case will not clothe the petitioners with any right to agitate about the investigation made or re-investigation made or further investigation made in the criminal case. It is for the petitioners to lead independent evidence before the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal about the accident and to persuade the Tribunal to give finding in their favour on involvement of opposite vehicle in the accident. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal having regard to the evidence to be let in or already let in before it, would come to an independent conclusion basing on such evidence. In that view of the matter, this Criminal Petition filed by the petitioners without impleading even the original accused/driver who got benefited from the 2nd final report, is incompetent and is not maintainable. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 25.03.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL PETITION No.7441 of 2009 DATED: 25.03.2011 ysk [1] (2009) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1051 [2] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 332