Bombay HC quashes rash riding case against student; orders probe cop’s delayed report in ‘trivial case’ – Times of India

MUMBAI: Bombay high court directed the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to initiate an appropriate inquiry against the concerned Investigating Officer who took more than one year for filing a report “in a trivial matter.”
The HC passed the order while quashing a case registered in 2014 against a then engineering student for rashly riding a motorcycle in the city. “Such inquiry report to be submitted to this Court within three months,’’ directed a bench of Justices S S Shinde and Manish Pitale on April 9 on a petition filed by Mohaseen Khan.
Khan, now a 27-year-old engineer, petitioned the HC this year to quash criminal proceedings and an order passed by a Bandra court magistrate, on the ground that the prosecution was barred by limitation. Under the criminal law magistrate can take cognizance of an offence within a year of its alleged commission, if the sentence attracted is up to a year’s imprisonment, his lawyer argued. The punishment for rash driving on a public way is maximum six months’.
In 2014 March, a police constable registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Khan and 13 others for committing a rash act on receiving information that some persons were riding motorcycles in a rash manner causing a risk to themselves and to others.
In May 2015, police filed its chargesheet for offences under section 279 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rash driving or riding on a public way punishable with maximum six month’ imprisonment and section 336 ( rash and negligent act endangering life or personal safety of others) which attracts three months’ sentence.
The magistrate took cognizance, a pre-trial step, in March 2017.
His lawyer said till date, the case has not moved ahead. His career took off and with his hard work he was getting promoted and offered a chance to work abroad in Oman but due to the pending case, he could not apply for his passport and lost the opportunity, he argued. But the offer is still open and hence he moved the HC.
The prosecutor argued that the magistrate has powers to extend time to take cognizance in certain cases in public interest.
The HC relied on Supreme Court rulings that laid down was laid down that “delay on the
part of the Court in taking cognizance of offence ought not to be the basis for holding that limitation period prescribed for minor offences under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. had expired.” This was held on the basis of the legal maxim ‘Actus curiae neminem gravabit– which means the act of God shall prejudice no man.
The SC had held that “if complaint in respect of offence was submitted before the competent Court within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., merely because the Court took time beyond the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence, it could not be held that the period of limitation had expired.”
In Khan’s case the HC said, “for the purpose of calculating limitation, the relevant dates are the date of the alleged offence and date when the report was submitted by the investigation officer before the jurisdictional Magistrate after completion of investigation. The time period between filing of such report/chargesheet and actual order of taking cognizance by the Magistrate cannot be taken into consideration for ascertaining whether limitation period
prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. had expired.”
The HC held that there was “nothing to show that the court of magistrate had either applied its mind to the aspect of expiry of limitation or…condoning the delay’’
The HC , thus concluded that the magistrate could not have taken cognizance in 2017 and held “further continuance of the criminal proceedings cannot be sustained.”