Rajpal v. Mrs.Samima & Anr.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 05 Sep 2008
- Bench
- RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.S.R.Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure P-1) whereby application has been allowed for the amendment of registration number of the offending vehicle from RJ-18G-2437 to RJ-18G-2438 as well as for arraying the driver of the offending truck Narender son of Dharam Pal, Caste Nai, resident of village Mehrha, P.S.Sadar Dadri, District Bhiwani as respondent No.2. The only argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that truck No.RJ-18G-2438 has been falsely involved only on the statement of Suraj Bhan, recorded on 13.1.2007 two days after the FIR that truck No.RJ-18G-2438 is standing at his Dhaba for the last 2 days whose driver told him that his truck is involved in an accident with a three wheeler, thereafter the driver of the truck did not return. According to the counsel for the petitioner, this statement of Suraj Bhan is recorded after 2 days whereas the statement of Prabhat Kumar, who has lodged the FIR, was instant in which truck No.RJ 18G-2437 has been mentioned. Therefore, the CR No.4767 of 2008 -2- amendment is after-thought and should not have been allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Although in the FIR lodged by Prabhat Kumar, the registration number of the offending truck has been mentioned as RJ-18G-2437 but FIR is definitely not an encyclopedia of all the facts. In the investigation it has been found that truck bearing registration No.RJ 18G-2438 was involved in the accident which fact is proved from its mechanical examination and the same has been taken by the police into possession. Besides this, after the completion of the investigation, challan has also been presented against Narender son of Dharam Pal, who was driving the truck No.RJ 18G-2438. Therefore, in my view, the learned trial Court has not committed any error and has rightly found it to be a case of inadvertence on the part of the person who had lodged the FIR while mentioning the truck No.RJ-18G-2437. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.
5.9.2008 Meenu (Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 05 Sep 2008. The bench was RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
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.