IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 464/2006 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Rajkumar …….Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & Others ……Respondents None for the applicant. Mr. G.S. Sandhu, GA, for the State. Mr. Rajendra Tamta, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Advocate, for the private respondent. 26th July, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By filing this criminal miscellaneous application, under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant has prayed to quash the order dated 16.3.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar as well as the order dated 11.8.2005, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 4.5.2005, at about 6 pm, Smt. Shimla Devi, the wife of the applicant, died in a road accident, when she was standing on a public road at Roorkee and a motorcycle came from Ramnagar side and dashed her. She suffered head injuries in the said accident. She was taken to the nearby nursing home, where she succumbed to her injuries. The applicant alleged that the said motorcycle was being driven rashly and negligently. The police did not lodge any FIR. Therefore, the applicant moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee. To judge the veracity of the allegations, a prima facie report was called for from the concerned police station by the said Magistrate. On enquiry, it was found that the accident occurred when Smt. Shimla Devi was trying to cross the road. While trying so, all of a sudden, she slipped on the road and fell down in the midst of the road. Meanwhile, a 2 motorcycle came and hit the body of Smt. Shimla Devi causing her head injury. She was taken to the nearby nursing home, where she was declared dead. 3. The applicant had himself certified that the said accident occurred suddenly and the same was a chance accident. The applicant accepted that none is guilty for causing the said accident. After considering the enquiry report, the Magistrate concerned did not find it a fit case for taking cognizance and initiation of criminal proceedings and, therefore, dismissed the said application under Section 156(3) CrPC. When applicant went in revision, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order of the Magistrate and dismissed the revision. 4. As stated above, the applicant had himself admitted that none was at fault for the said accident. Further, the deceased could not hold her balance and fell down on the road while trying to cross the same. The applicant’s complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC has already been rejected by the Magistrate concerned after calling for report from the concerned police station, which was affirmed by the Sessions Judge in revision. Therefore, in the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 5. Resultantly, the present criminal miscellaneous application, being devoid of any substance, is hereby dismissed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 26.7.2011 Prabodh