3^5T ^1<41<?'>^, ?$TO^^|<S, ic)o6|<-|y ^. m-9 Mo. ^3/<aoc>?- Nl^dl tb^lcb ••••-—"•—•••""•—•••••••—•••—•••• ^ 200 3?lit?T XT3W (^tl^^) ^T^r.SRT'^TW ^?T3^1TOT sb^lJch '^TOT ^rttn ^TI^T SB : HON?BLE SHR APPLICANT^ Vs. NON-APPLICANT 25-7-2Q07 Bec4€Lal son of Baadi Lal, aged about 44 year^ resident ofR.T.S. Colony, Street No, 54, ^uarter No. 1070, Police Station Torwa Tow^, TehsU aad District Bilaspur (C.G.) The ptate of Chhattisgarh, fhrough Station Hou^e Officer, Goveminent Railway Police, Bila^pur (C.G.) AdvocaK^ Shri M.D. Dhote, Advocs Shri G.K. Beriwal, Dy. A prefe|rred 2. The applicaiit has crimmal prosecution ia Crime crimmal case No. 1646/2004 Magistrate, Bilaspiir, 3. Learaed coiuisel for thel was Engiae Driver ofTraiaNo) Raigarh. The traia was stop^ However when titie traia proce^ded whUe attenipthig to board the and his legs were amputated accideut, ojffence was register^d agaiast the appUcaiit aad the of I.P,C, aad imder Section GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007 — 50,000. ^Rf^Rt^ TTR^Tf ^ f^st <n?!-^:« '^3fRR3TT^T DHIRBNDRA MI8HRA. J. for the appUcaat, G, forthe State. fhis appUcation for quashiag his No. 735/2003 on the basis ofwhich a is pendiag beforc the Special Railway applicant submits that fhe appUcaat 338 which was going froia BUaspur to ^ed near Kulipara due to rcd signal. for destination, one Ashok Kiuaar trunnmg traiii feU down under fhe train biid he died, On the basis of fhe above aad fhe charge sheet has been filed IGuard of the traia under Section 304A 175 of Indiaa Railways Act (for short 3^eT •-^l^l<y>^, ?$T{i'(HJi<S, (c)<?')|-M^< C^. M-P^t?. t^-3^e?7 *11Ndl tbNlcb"""""""""""""""""""""" """""^ 200 3n^5T ^[^K ( lici^<^ ) 3TI^T^T RTi|ch 'WT 3TR?T $h^l<=b ^<nW -yf^a ^II^T hereiaafter referred to as the A<| reading of Sections 175, 179 of the offence under Section 17| court except on a coinplamt fhe Court below has taken 175 of fhe Act on fhe basi^ Govenunent Raiiway PoUce ia Act 1't). He further argued that a conjoiat aii|d 180F of Act rcsults fhat cogmzaace ]5 of fhe Act caanot be taken by any in^de by the officer authorized, however cogtiizaace for fhe offence under Section of fhe charge sheet filed by fhe fcontravenuon of Section 180F of fhe 4. I have heard learaed perused fhe F.I.R. aad fhe charj coliinsel 5, Fiom perusal of the F.J agaiast fhe applicaiit is fhat Railway Crossmg aad all ofa wifhout blowiag hom as a res^ilt Ashok Kumar came under witoesses have also stated train atl of a sudden without person came under the traia, charge sheet, there is a pnaia| fhat he acted in a rash aiid without blowiag hom and alleged that the accident occunjed chl^f<yl41l 'RFT^f ^* ft^t Tfe^R ^ ^tRFT^TT^T for the applicaat. I have also ;e sheet filed agaiast fhe appUcaat. •R, it toTaaspircs fhat the allegation |the ttam had halted near Kulipara ^dden, fhe appUcaiit started the trarn of which right leg of fhe deceased train who ultimately died. The fhe driver of the train started fhe blowiag honi aad at fhat tmie, one fix>ia tiie evidence available in tfae facie allegation against fhe applicant maaner whUe stardng the train of his rash aad negUgent act, it is sijidden, t|he th^it Tbus ne^Iigent becakise GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007 — 50,000. ^S^ -qNK?-)^, ^T{i<-|<|<S, fsl^Krjy Nl^dl 95W3R •^200 3n^?T ^T^ ('^t'5^?) ^T^T^ ^Jch ^WWCT sh^l<=h '^ITW Trftd ^TT^T 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Corooration -v- NEPC India Ctourt in the matters of Indian OU ^td. and others reported in (2006)6 SCC 736 while dealing wifli jurisdiction under Section 4821 crumnal proceeding has held thjat w'(i) a coniplaiat can b^ in the coinplauit, even if accepted ia fheir entiret^ offence or make out fhe c&se For fhis purpose, t}ie whole, but wifhout exai|iinuig Neither a detatled inqui|ry miaterial nor aa assessni^nt fhe aUegations in fhe prayer for quashiag of a (ii) A coDiplaint niay abuse of the process proceediag is found to xnalice for wreakmg aUegations are absiird ^Fprf^f^T 'HR^f "Ef fec3t <Fii-^l< '^'3tf^:T3n^T |fhe principles relating to exercise of |of Cr.RC. to quash a complaiat aad quashed where the aUegations made |fhey arc taken at fheir face value and ^ do not prima facie constitute aay aUeged against the accused. coiiiplaiat has to be examuied as a fhe merits of the allegations. nor a nieticiilous aaalysis of the ^nt offhe reUabiLity or genuiaeness of >^nplabit is warranted whue exajmmng <|toniplamt. CO<DLp |also be quashed where it is a clear 4f the Court, as when the criixunal Jiave been initiated with mala fides/ veng|eaace or to cause harm, or where the ac|d iolierently improbable, GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007 — 50,000. 'S^! '-^I-MI^^, ^>Tti^jl<o, 1®|(?'>!<-1^< ^Wvll *^|ch""""""""""""""""""""""""" '""^ 200 3T^?T T^^ ( 4<=(f^<^T ) ^n^r^T ^ich 'wr^qrr^T ^t^icb <,- p/ '^TTW^Tf^T 3?H^T (m) The power to qu or scuttle a legitumate sparingly and with quasjh shaU not, however, be used to stifle pl:osecution. The power should be used abunUaat caution,3? 7. In the iastaat case, if agaiast fhe appMcaat as we fiad that there is speci&c beiag the driver ofthe tram blowiag hona as a resiilt of froia the trabi scraaibled unfortunate accident which Kiiiaar. So far as technical o1 could not have been taken absence of a coniplaiat raade is open to fhe appUcaat to which shaU be decided by th\ beiag iafluenced by fhis order.l contalaed sljarted wNch, tb ullfcimately 8. la the light of the aforc^ petition, The petition beuig d^ aad it is accordiagly disinisse4 chj^f<n4t^> TTTR^f ^f fs^ ^M^K ^ 3^f?R3Tr^r we exaimne priraa facie aUegations ia fhe F.I.R. and fhe charge sheet, splegation agabist the appUcaiit that he fhe traia all of a sudden without 7^iich, the passengers who had alighted board the tram resiiltbig ia fhe resiilted in fhe death ofAshok )jection that cognizaace of fhe offence |on fhe basis of police report ia fhe the officer aufhorized is conceraed, it fhis objection before the trial Court trial Court on its own nierit wifhout ^y ra(se iaid discussion, I fmd no merit m this ;void of inerit is liable to be disniissed Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge GRPRJ — FS/246—2/2007 — 50,000.