Mr. G S. Arora @ Tony Arora and Others vs The State of Maharashtra

Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.—Rule. Learned APP waives service for respondent No. 1. Learned Counsel appearing for 2nd respondent waives service. Taken up for hearing forthwith. By this Application u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants herein are seeking the relief of quashing of FTR on the basis of which Crime No. 275/2012 is registered against them at Kalwa Police Station for the offences punishable u/s 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act.

On 22nd August, 2012, the Police Head Constable Balu Dharma Rathod attached to Thane City Police Station, was on patrolling duty at Kharegaon Toll Naka at about 9.00 a.m. He was informed by a motorist that a Trailer had broken down on the Kharegaon Bridge due to which there was a traffic jam. Upon receipt of the said information, the Police Head Constable reached the said spot and noticed a container bearing Registration No. HR-55-N-1429 was at a standstill on the Bridge and the right side tyres of the said Trailer had busted. Upon enquiry, the driver informed him that he was not carrying the stepeny. Therefore, he had called upon the head office and asked the head office to send extra tyres. It appears from the cause titles of the petition that the head office was at Village Khanavale, Post Poyanje, Mumbai Pune Road, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. Naturally, more than two hours were required for the persons from the head office to reach the spot and make extra tyres available to put the Trailer into motion. The failure of the Trailer on a busy road had entailed traffic jam on both sides of the road from 9.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. The Head Constable Balu Rathod then lodged a report at Kalwa Police Station alleging therein that the petitioner No. 1 who happens to be the Director of M/s. Autocreates Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner No. 2 being the Manager of the said Company and the petitioner No. 3 had allegedly committed offence punishable u/s 341 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 191 of the Motor Vehicles Act Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code is the penalizing Section for an offence of a wrongful confinement which is defined in Section 340 of the IPC. Confinement is a form of restraint in which a person is restrained from going beyond certain prescribed limits and would become wrongful if the restraint is illegal and the person is prevented from going where he has a right to go. It entails an intentional wrongful restraint either by threat of personal violence or curtailing the liberty of a person. In the present case, it appears from the allegations in the first information report that there was obstruction of passage of the vehicles due to reasons which were beyond the control of the driver of the Trailer. No voluntary act is attributable to the driver of the Trailer i.e. petitioner No. 3 by which he intended to obstruct the passage of traffic. Hence, it is clear that there was no mens rea on the part of the driver to obstruct the right of way and he had not obstructed the right of user of a public place or public way in an unlawful manner.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date of incident, the petitioner No. 1 was in United States of America on an official business tour and that he had no concern with the incident which had occurred and, therefore, he cannot be held liable for delay in sending the tyres to the place of incident after two hours of intimation. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 was the Manager and he was not on the Bridge when the Trailer was stalled due to burst of tyres. That the petitioner No. 3 was in no way responsible for the failure of the truck and it was only an accident.

Learned APP has submitted that the fact that the tyres could not be changed immediately because the driver was not carrying the stepeny had caused inconvenience to the public at large and they had to be confined to the spot as there was obstruction of passage and hence the accused have conjointly committed the said offence.

We agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners cannot be held liable for the offences punishable u/s 341 of the Indian Penal Code as they had not indulged into any voluntary act so as to confine the public at large on the spot.

It is true that the petitioner No. 3 had not carried a stepeny in anticipation. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had not been diligent to see that the Trailer was in proper condition and that the driver had taken every precaution to see that the disabled vehicle would not cause any impediment to the free flow of traffic and hence the applicants would be liable for the offence punishable u/s 191 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Hence, the following order is passed:-

(i) Proceedings of FIR vide C.R. No. I-275 of 2012 registered with Kalwa Police Station stand quashed and set aside only to the extent of Section 341 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.

(ii) We clarify that the investigation will continue insofar as the offence alleged u/s 191 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is concerned.

(iii) Rule is partly made absolute in the above terms.