Petitioner herein is the accused in S.T. No. 678/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary. While he was driving his car No. KL-1-X-911 along the Alappuzha- Changanassery public road, he was intercepted by the G.S.I. of Police, Nedumudi Police Station, on the ground that the vehicle was being driven by him rationally and negligently so as to endanger human life. He was arrested on the spot, the vehicle was also seized by the police, and later he was subjected to medical examination. On medical examination, it was detected that he had not consumed alcohol. However, the F.I.R. was prepared under Section 279 IPC. Later, the police submitted final report also under Section 279 IPC. The said final report is sought to be quashed, on the ground that this is really a false prosecution. 2. Finding that all the allegations in the final report are in printed form, and that even the statement given by the material Crl.M.C.. No. 5110/2014 2 witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is in a printed form, this Court directed the S.I. of Police to submit explanation. As regards the final report in printed form, he has some explanation, but there is absolutely no explanation why there is statement of a witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in a printed form. This statement, said to have been given by the Sr.Civil Police Officer, Arun in a printed form, itself is sufficient to show that the whole prosecution is really artificial. The charge sheet does not explain how the driving of the petitioner herein would cause danger to human life. A casual statement will not constitute defence under Section 279 IPC. The FIR and the charge sheet must explain what exactly is the rashness or negligence, or how the said rashness or negligence would endanger human life in the given situation where no hurt was caused to anybody. Such details are not there in this case in the FIR or in the charge sheet. There is yet another important aspect. The petitioner was arrested by the Sub Inspector, Poppachan, the FIR was registered by him, the statement of the material witnesses was also recorded by him, and the charge sheet was also submitted by him. Thus the whole action of the Sub Inspector of Police is really suspicious, and Crl.M.C.. No. 5110/2014 3 there is reason to believe that this is a prosecution somehow created by him artificially. I find that this prosecution is liable to be quashed. I haven't so far seen statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in printed form. The learned Public Prosecutor will take this seriously and give necessary directions to the police officers through the Director General of Prosecution.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The prosecution as against the petitioner herein in S.T. No. 678/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the petitioner will stand released from prosecution. The bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioner will stand discharged.
Sd/-
P. UBAID, JUDGE sd // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE