Crl.Pet./218/2022 of PRASANTA SARMA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR on 19 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 20-08-2026 Heard Mr. S.N Krishnatraya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Sarma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and Mr. N. Ray, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

2. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, the petitioner has sought for setting aside and quashing the FIR dated 17.02.2020 and the charge- sheet filed in connection with Belsor P.S. Case No. 43/2020, registered under Sections 279/338 of the IPC, and for quashing the proceedings in PRC Case No. 612 of 2020, arising out of Belsor P.S. Case No. 43/ 2020.

3. The prosecution has emanated from an FIR lodged by the respondent No. 2 on 17.02.2020, where it was alleged that while the respondent No. 2 was traveling in a vehicle driven by the present petitioner, all of a sudden, a dog came in front of the car, and as such, the petitioner lost control and met with an accident as he was driving in a high speed, and dashed the car into a tree. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 met with injuries in several body parts, and the car was also damaged.

4. After investigation in the matter, a charge-sheet was submitted, which culminated in PRC Case No. 612 of 2020, and by an order dated 15.09.2021, the petitioner was allowed to go on bail. The cognizance was taken on

09.11.2021.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been serving the husband of the informant since the year 2000, and save and except this one accident, the petitioner had always driven carefully, and there was no accident in his entire career of serving as a driver to the husband of the respondent No. 2. On the fateful day, there was heavy rainfall, and all of a sudden, as reflected in the FIR also, a dog had come in front of the car, and the vehicle lost control and met with an accident.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner still continues to serve the husband of the respondent No. 2, both as a driver and also as a helper in his clinic, and the misunderstanding between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner regarding his rash and negligent driving has since been cleared. He has accordingly prayed that the criminal proceedings in PRC No. 612/2020 may be closed, failing which the petitioner would be made to suffer the trial proceedings and, in the event of being found guilty, to also undergo imprisonment, for no fault of his own.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that it is a fact that the petitioner was driving the car on the fateful day through rain, and that a dog had crossed the road, due to which the accident occurred. The learned counsel has submitted that he is under instructions that the petitioner is still serving the husband of the respondent No. 2 as a driver and a receptionist of his clinic, and the respondent No. 2 does not desire to have the petitioner penalized for a single incident of accident.

8. The learned APP has submitted that in the event the respondent No. 2 does not wish to proceed to have the petitioner punished for the allegations of rash and negligent driving, it would not be feasible, and would rather consume unnecessary time, in proceeding with the prosecution. He has, however, submitted that the petitioner, if guilty of the act of rash and negligent driving which resulted in an accident, would otherwise be liable to be punished in accordance with law.

9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, and I find that the petitioner had met with the accident, due to the sudden crossing of a dog, due to which he lost control and met with the accident. The petitioner continues to serve the husband of the respondent No. 2, thereby indicating that there is no ill will between the parties. There is no allegation in the FIR that any person other than the respondent No. 2 had suffered or had been threatened with any accident due to the driving of the petitioner.

10. I find that since the respondent No. 2 has also expressed her unwillingness to proceed to have the petitioner penalized, no fruitful end would be achieved by allowing the prosecution to continue in PRC Case No. 612/2020.

11. Accordingly, though I do not find any error on either the submission of the charge-sheet or on the cognizance being taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari on the issue, since there would be no fruitful purpose served in the prosecution, the proceedings in PRC Case No. 612/2020 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari PS is interfered with and directed to be closed.

12. The criminal petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant