Judgment · High Court · 2011
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 338
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. All those questions fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact and pertain to the defence of the petitioner which can be decided only on evidence. Hence this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 of the Code. This criminal…
Judgment
Order
Petitioner herein is accused in C.C.No.383 of 2005 on the file of the Court of V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The offence alleged against her in the said case is one punishable under Section 338 IPC. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Code), for quashing the said case.
#2. The main plea of the petitioner is that she is not responsible for the accident and police have charge sheeted her without doing proper investigation. It is also stated by the learned counsel for
petitioner that in the FIR the driver of the alleged offending vehicle is mentioned as a male but the police have charge sheeted the petitioner who is a female. Added to this, many contentions are raised to show as to how the accident occurred and that the petitioner is not responsible for the said accident.
#3. All those questions fall within the purview of disputed questions of fact and pertain to the defence of the petitioner which can be decided only on evidence. Hence this is not a fit case for interference under Section 482 of the Code. This criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.
#4. At the end, the learned counsel for petitioner pleaded that the petitioner is a lady and therefore her presence before the trial court for every date of hearing should be dispensed with. It may be noted that the petitioner is a young lady and added to this her identification as culprit is also in dispute. Hence this relief is also rejected. It shall however be open for the petitioner to make an application before the trial court for the above relief of dispensing with her presence and the said court may pass appropriate orders thereon. 14th December 2011 CVRK _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 338; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 14 Dec 2011. The bench was N RAVI SHANKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.