The High Court · 2025

state of Telang"n, ,t iji,ii,-r5Ur,i. ini*sri p S Sultan bazlr. Hyderabad. TG ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

2. Smt.P.Swaroopa, Wo. Raju, aged 9Q-y9."'P, Occ sweep^er R/o'H No 5-1- - 7diin, niitiichimoer, ea'n( sireet, Koti ,lvderabad' rG ...RESPONDENT No.2 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court may U" pf"u.ua to call for the records relating to C C No-9646 of 2023 (Crime No 259 of2023ofPSsultanBazar,Hyderanao,rcpendingonthefileofthellAddl.' Chliftf"tropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad and quash the same against the Petitioner/ accused. r.A. NO:1OF 2025 Petitionundersection52SofBNSS,prayingthatinthecircumstances io stay all further proceeding,s, including appearance stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition, the High court- may ;;';|.;.il ^of .the p"titi-o""ilr""rseo Nt.z in Cc uo.sio+o ol 2023 (crime No 259 of 2023 of PS britin Ar=rr, Hyderabad. TG pending on the file of the ll Addl Chief fvfeiiopolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad pending disposal of the above criminal Petition. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminar petiti.n and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BETH, VENKATESWARLU, Advocate for the petitioner and RUDRusH DESHpANDE, Assistant Pubric prosecutor, on beharf of the Responderrt No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO.4901 0F 2025 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is hled under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the the petitioner who is accused No 2 in proceedings C.C.No.9646 of 2O23 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampaily, Hyderabad' The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Section 7aOll77 of against Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The facts of the case are that Zt 27 Og '2023 at O83O hours, the de-facto complainant-2"d respondent lodged a report stating that at about 3.30 a'm, she got an information from P.Kundan that her son P.Avinash returned to home with an Activa vehicle bearing No.TS 09 EQ 296a wherein Kundan was the pillion rider and Avinash was driving the Activa vehicle' It is further stated that at about 3 '2O a'ro:,', a TATA 407 vehicle bearing No. TS 09 UC 9317 at metro piliar No'B l2l9 and l22O at the metro stairs at Sultan Bazar near to Mail post Ofhce' driven by a postal worker came from the wrong direction at high speed and collided with their vehicle' Both Avinash and Kundan 2 sustained injuries; Avinash suffered severe injurjes, including bleeding from his nose and mouth, and became unconscious. Kundan recei,".ed injuries to his left leg and facr: They were taken to Osrnania General Hospital, where Avinash received first aid treatmcnr. he was later taken to CC Shroff Hospital, Kachigucla and then to Sai Krishna Hospital, Kachiguda where he rvas declared dead at around 6:30 am. As such, the complainant requested that necessary action be tilken against the driver o1-thc crime vehicle.

3. According to the investigation, accused No.1 drove the vehicle on th: date of accident who is grot having driving license and he wzrs allotted with the duty of helper to A.2. ,\ccording to Lq..8-Postal Assistant, petitioner has to drive r_he vehicle, whereas, hr: rlelcgated his duty to A. 1 knowingly th:Lt A.1 is not having anv dr-ivirrg license. As such, driving the vehicle without license knowingly, the driver was arrayed as accuse.cl No.1 and the petitioner herein is arrayed as A.2 for negligently handing over the r,.ehicle to A. I . Aggrieved by the same, _he present criminal petition is hled. a: //, 3

4. Heard Sri Bethi Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No. 1-State.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner herein is charged with the offence under Section 18O rlw.l77 of the M.V.Act. Section 180 of M.V.Act, is applicable when the owner of vehicle allows someone who doesn't posscss the required driving license to operate the vehicle, the orvner can be punishable with fine or imprisonment. In the present case, petitioner is not the on'ner of vehicle. The Central Government is the owner of vehicle. Petitioner is a mechanic and his duty is only to check the vehicle. If there is any mechanical defect, he has to attend the same and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. The petitioner herein has not entrusted any vehicle to A.1, as such, none of the offences attracts to the petitioner. Hence, prayed this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition stating that there are specihc allegations against the petitioner. The petitioner herein has entrusted the vehicle to A. 1 knowingly that he is not having any driving 4 ':, -.:it j license to drLr.e the said vehicie and the specific clr-r ty allotted to the petitioner is that he has to drive the vehicle on that day and A. 1 is entrusted with the duty of helper to the petitioner_A.2 and this issue he s to be adjudicated during the course of trial with proper er.idence. At this stage there are no grounds to quash the proceedirLgs and prayed to dismiss this petition.

7. Thougl: notice is served on the 2.d responclent appeared cn i-rer behalf. 8 Considt:ring the submissions made by the learned counsel lor petitioner, learned Assistant public prosecutor and the material ltlaccd on record, the allegation against the: petitioner_ A.2 is that ht: entrusted the vehicle knowingly tha1. A. 1 is not having valid drivrng ricense, due to which the accide,t occurred. Even accordrng to the prosecution, A.2 is a mechanic rn the said Organizatron and in the charge sheet in Column No. 1t his occupation is shown as Mechanic, but he is not driver by profession anci his duty is also not driving the vehicle

9. The sta:ement of Lw.g that he entrusted the duty of driving the vehicle on the day of accident shows that though petitioner herein is a mechanic, he is entrusted with :he dutv of 5 /. driving. lrarned counsel for the petitioner filed the document showing the duties of mechanic wherein, a mechanic is no way authorized to drive the vehicle. His duty is to check the vehicle before running on the road. Further, Lw. 15- MVI RTA Hyderabad, Central Zone inspected the crime vehicle and found irregularities of not having driving license to the accused' Lw. 16-MVI RTA Hyderabad, Centrai Zone inspected the crime vehicle and in his opinion accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle which shows that there is no mechanical defect in the crime vehicle at the time of accident' [f there is any defect in the crime vehicle at the time of accident, then petitioner can be arrayed as accused as he being the mechanic of the said Organization. As the petitioner is not a professional driver or his designation is not a driver, entrustment of work of driving to the petitioner-A'2 by Lw'8 is not in accordance with his designation. Therefore, the offencc alleged under Section l8O rlw.l77 of M.V-Act is not applicable to the petitioner herein, as he is not the owner of vehicle or he is driver by profession and his duty is not driving of the said vehicle. Therefore, the allegation against the petitioner seems to be baseless and continuation of proceedings against the 6 petitioner is n tthing but abuse of process of law. Asr sr-rch, the proceedings against Lhe petitioner are liable to be quashed.

10. Accordingly, the Crimrnal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings ag;ainst the petitioner-A.2 in C.C.No.96z,6 of 2023 on the hle of Il-Additional Chief Metropolitan Mar3istrate at Nampally, [{yci,:rabad. Miscell:rrLeous petitions, pending, if any, sh.rll stand closed STY- A.V.S.PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Addl.. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, Hyderabad 2. The Station Hcuse Officer, Sultan Bazaar P S., Hyderabad' 3. One CC to SR . BETHI VENKATESWARLU Advocate [OtUC] 4 Two CCs to Pl'JBLIC PROSECUTOR Advocate [OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies MKN/PSL w HIGH COURT DATED:2410612025 ORDER .:a () (9 * 1 6 itlt 2025 I( CRLP.No.4901 of 2025 t+,, ,qr.9 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED sod4 Y^- ,(ffi5 I l i I i i I I i I I t I i , I I i i I I I I I I I i I ! i I i I I I