High Court

Legal Reasoning

17 APPLN.2470.2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.7 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2470 OF 2025Babasaheb Raybhan Adhane,Age: 37 years Occ: Private Service,R/o: Pisadevi, Tal and Dist- Aurangabad.… ApplicantVersus1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Investigating Officer M.I.D.C Cidco Police Station,Tal and Dist-Chh. Sambhajinagar.2.Prakash Sahebrao Nade,Age: 50 yrs, Occu- Private Service, R/o: In front of Jayashri Kalni Dange School, Mukundwadi, Tal and Dist- Chh. Sambhajinagar.… Respondents...Mr. Yogesh Rajendra Neb, Advocate for Applicant.Mr. N. R. Dayama, APP for Respondent / State....CORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :21st July, 2025. Per Court:.Present application has been filed for quashing of the FIRvide C.R. No.145 of 2025, dated 28th February, 2025, registered withM.I.D.C. CIDCO Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, forthe offence punishable under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bhartiya 27 APPLN.2470.2025.odtNyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 2Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and thelearned APP for the respondent No.1 / State. 3It is not even necessary to issue notice to respondentNo.2.4The learned counsel for the applicant has taken usthrough the contents of the FIR and submits that the alleged incident isstated to have taken place on 1st February, 2025, whereas the FIR hasbeen lodged on 28th February, 2025 and therefore, there is a hugedelay, which has not been explained by the informant. The informantacts as a security guard with the showroom of BMW cars and hestates that around 11:30 am to 12:00 noon, a car had come forservicing. The workshop technician took out the car from theworkshop and brought towards the informant. He parked the car insuch a way that one of the wheels ran over the right foot / leg of theinformant. When he shouted, the driver took the car in reverse. At thattime he found that the technician was the present applicant and thecompany advisor Mr. Satyajit Verma was sitting next to him in the car.The car was bearing registration No.MH-20-WQ-9999. As a result ofthe said accident, he suffered injury to his right foot / leg. Themanager then asked the informant to go to the hospital. The informant 37 APPLN.2470.2025.odtwas taken to E.S.I.S. Hospital and after getting some treatment hewent home. However, still he was not feeling recovered. He wasadmitted by the present applicant as well as the company HR managerto Hedgewar Hospital. After getting treatment from the said hospital,he went to lodge the report. 5The learned counsel for the applicant submits that therewas no question of rash or negligence on the part of the presentapplicant and necessary ingredients of the said offence are not statedin the FIR itself. He has relied on the medical papers from the E.S.I.S.Hospital, which do not show anything serious, but it is only stated blunttrauma. Then the x-ray was also not showing any bony abnormality.The applicant himself had admitted him to Hedgewar Hospital and themedical expenses of the informant / injured have been borne by theapplicant and therefore, this is the fit case where the Court shouldexercise its powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya NagarikSuraksha Sanhita (BNSS). 6The learned APP strongly opposes the application andsubmits that the investigation is pending and the applicant appears tohave approached the Court prematurely. 7The first and the foremost fact to be noted is that we hadheard the matter for a while on 16th July 2025, and when it was found 47 APPLN.2470.2025.odtthat the learned counsel for the applicant was relying on the casepapers of E.S.I.S. Hospital, Aurangabad and submitted that thosedocuments have been received by the applicant by making anapplication to the said hospital, this Court had directed the learnedcounsel for the applicant to get a copy of the application, which wasgiven to the said hospital. Accordingly, the photocopy of an applicationhas been produced on record. It is taken on record by marking as“Exhibit-X”. There is no date to the said application, nor the date isthere below the signature of the learned advocate. However, it bearsthe acknowledgment of the inward-outward clerk of the said hospitaland below his signature there is a date of 7th May, 2025. Perusal of thesaid application does not show that it was under the Right toInformation Act and there is no documentary evidence, as it has beenconfirmed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicanthas not paid any charges for the copies of the injury certificate ordocument in respect of the injury to the informant. The inward-outwardnumber has not been stated. Though we have a reservation, still oneof the possibilities that this application might have been prepared afterour order dated 16th July, 2025, cannot be ruled out, taking intoconsideration the above observation. 8Another aspect to be noted is that when a person takesmedical treatment in a hospital, then the hospital authority cannot give 57 APPLN.2470.2025.odtthe document of treatment to a third-party under the Right toInformation Act. If this is allowed, then it would lead to a chaos and thedisclosure of the injury, which is in fact personal to the injured andwithout his consent cannot be disclosed, will not be absorbed. Of-course, this is our prima-facie opinion and it is applicable to even theGovernment hospitals. Though the applicant states that he bore themedical expenses of the informant for Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, when itis MLC case, the hospital authority without there being any clarificationas to what is the relationship between the patient and the person, whois demanding the copies of the papers, will not be justified in issuingthose copies. 9At this stage, the investigation is still pending. Only on thebasis of the FIR, the applicant prays that the offence should bequashed and set aside as against him. According to the applicant, thedelay has not been explained. However, we find that there are somereferences regarding the delay. The informant states that though theincident had taken place on 1st February, 2025, he got the treatmentfrom E.S.I.S. Hospital and on the same day went home, yet he statesthat on 5th February, 2025, even the applicant as well as the HRmanager of the company had then admitted him to the hospital and theapplicant admits that he had admitted the informant to the hospital.Whether E.S.I.S. Hospital had treated the case as MLC or not, will 67 APPLN.2470.2025.odthave to be then gone into by the investigating officer, but certainlyDr.Hedgewar Hospital had considered it as a MLC case. We canconsider that the said hospital would have informed the said fact aboutthe admission of the informant in the hospital to the police. It is thenfor the police to explain as to why they had not gone to the hospitaland recorded the statement of the informant. It is on the paper that hewas treated on OPD basis, but the indoor continuation sheet showsthat he was admitted and was discharged on 6th February, 2025around 04:41 pm. Therefore, delay cannot be the ground as it is liableto be explained, a reason for quashing and setting aside the FIR. 10As per the FIR, the company advisor Mr. Satyajit Vermawas inside the car when it ran over the right foot / leg of the informant.His statement would be important. The other aspects regarding theavailability of the width of the road, where the informant was sitting andwhat was approximately the speed of the car, are the important pointsto be considered for negligence in driving and therefore, when theinvestigation is still pending on the vital point, this is not a stage wherewe should interfere.11The application stands rejected at the threshold. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga