Facts
The petitioner sought to quash the cognizance order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the ACJM VI, Danapur, in Traffic P.S. Case No. 38/2015.
Source reference: para. 2The prosecution case, initiated by a 2015 FIR, alleged that the petitioner rode a motorcycle (No. BR-01BJ/6269) in a rash and negligent manner, hitting the informant on Bailey Road and causing injuries.
Source reference: para. 3The petitioner argued the case was a malicious retaliation for a criminal case he had filed against the informant on the preceding day due to an ongoing land dispute.
Source reference: para. 5-6Issues
1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC on the grounds of being maliciously instituted due to private enmity.
Source reference: para. 6, 11Law Applied
Sections 279 (rash driving), 337 (causing hurt by endangering life), and 338 (causing grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code.
Source reference: para. 2, 4State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], specifically Para 102, which outlines the categories of cases where inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 can be exercised to prevent the abuse of the process of law, including cases attended with mala fides or those instituted for wreaking vengeance.
Source reference: para. 6, 10Reasoning
The court observed that while the petitioner alleged malicious intent due to previous litigation, the motorcycle involved was registered in the petitioner's name.
Source reference: para. 9The court reasoned that since the informant/injured party supported the occurrence in his version, there was no apparent reason to disbelieve the allegations at the preliminary stage.
Source reference: para. 9Referring to the Bhajan Lal guidelines, the court noted that quashing is not warranted when the allegations, if taken at face value, constitute a prima facie offence.
Source reference: para. 10The court determined that the truth of the "malicious prosecution" defense and disputed facts regarding evidence must be tested during the trial rather than in a quashing petition.
Source reference: para. 11Holding
The court answered the issue in the negative and dismissed the petition, holding that the merits of disputed facts and the defense's argument of a false implication are matters for evidence during trial.
The court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, noting the incident dates back to 2015.
Source reference: para. 13Original Court PDF
Anjani KumarvsState Of Bihar and Anr
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in