Rajeev Jhawer @ Rajeev Jhawar vs State Of West Bengal & Anr

Madhumati Mitra, J

The petitioner has approached before this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings in connection with G.R.Case No.1221 of 2009 arising out of

Kolaghat Police Station, Case No.228 of 2009 under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8B of the National Highways Act, 1956

read with Sections 201/190(1)/194 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pending before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Mednipur,

Tamluk.

The petitioner is the Managing Director of Usha Martin Limited having its registered office at 2A, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700 071.

On September 26, 2009, the opposite party no.2 the National Highways Authority lodged a written complaint with the Officer in charge of Kolaghat

Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 8B of the National Highways

Act, 1956 read with Sections 201/190/(1)/194 of the Motor Vehicle Act against Usha Martin and M/s. Commercial Carriers Pvt.Ltd. Sakchi (JSR).

It was alleged in the said FIR that a trailer truck of M/s. Commercial Carriers Pvt. Ltd. carrying on a consignment of 61 tons from Usha Martin,

Ranchi was found broken down on 23.09.2009, on the bridge over River Rupnarayan near Kolaghat. It was alleged that at the relevant point of time

the said vehicle was carrying overloaded consignment exceeding its permissible limit for which the chasis of the trailer truck was broken causing

disruption of normal traffic movement on the bridge. There was no effort on the part of Usha Martin or M/s. Commercial Carrier for repairing or

shifting of the loaded vehicle resulting in continuous traffic jam or both sides of the bridge. The vehicle was repaired by the efforts of police

administration.

On the basis of that FIR, Kolaghat Police Station Case No.228 of 2009 was registered. Investigation ended in submission of charge-sheet against four

accused persons including the present petitioner. Thereafter a supplementary charge-sheet was submitted showing one Goutam Roy as accused.

Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that Usha Martin in terms of an order from a China based company dispatched steel

wire ropes from its factory at Ranchi to Kolkata Port for onward transmission and shipment to Usha Martin Singapore, a subsidiary to Usha Martin.

The carriage of the said material was entrusted to one M/s. Commercial Carriers Pvt. Ltd. The said consignment of steel wire ropes was loaded to a

trailer truck and the said trailer truck was allegedly broken down near Kolaghat bridge.

It has been specifically submitted by the Learned Advocate for the petitioner that neither the Usha Martin nor the petitioner was responsible for the

alleged offences.

Learned Advocate has further contended that neither Usha Martin nor the petitioner had knowledge regarding over loading of the said trailer. It has

been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the driver and owner of the trailer truck had the responsibility, if any, for the alleged incident as Usha

Martin was not the owner of the offending vehicle.

Case diary has been produced at the time of hearing.

I have carefully examined the submissions advanced by the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and State of West Bengal both on the legal

and factual aspects and also scrupulously scanned the materials placed on record and the case diary.

Petitioner was the Managing Director of Usha Martin at the relevant point of time. From the material on record, it appears that the said Usha Martin

dispatched steel wire ropes to Kolkata from its factory at Ranchi and materials were entrusted to one M/s. Commercial Carriers Pvt. Ltd, company

having its registered offence at 501, 502, 5th Floor, Akashdeep Plaza, Golmuri, Jamshedpur. The trailer truck carrying the steel wire ropes of Usha

Matin was broken down on Kolaghat bridge. Owner of a vehicle has the responsibility to keep the vehicle road worthy. Only the driver of the vehicle

will be held liable for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Section 8B of the National Highways Act and Section 201/190(1)/194 of the Motor

Vehicle Act by no stretch of the imagination are applicable to the petitioner as Usha Martin was not the owner of the offending vehicle. Moreover, the

said Usha Martin had no control over the vehicle which broke down on the Highway. Usha Martin was not the owner of the offending vehicle and as

such it had no responsibility to keep the vehicle roadworthy. Charge-sheet was submitted under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code read with

Section 8B of the National High Ways Act, 1956 read with Section 201/190(1)/194 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

In the instant case, the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected during investigation do not prima facie constitute the

commission of any offences alleged against the present petitioner who was the Managing Director of Usha Martin at the relevant point of time.

In my opinion, the instant case comes within the parameters as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others Vs. Ch.

Bhajan Lal and others reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 and in other subsequent cases regarding exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. The criminal proceeding being G.R.Case No.1221 of 2009 requires to be quashed against the present petitioner.

I am of the view that continuance of the criminal proceedings pending against the present petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of the

Court.

Criminal proceedings being G.R.Case No.1221 of 2009, corresponding to Kolaghat Police Station Case No.228 of 2009, so far as this petitioner is

concerned is hereby quashed.

Interim order stands vacated.

Copy of case diary be handed over to the Learned Advocate for the State immediately.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance with all necessary formalities.