FIRST LAW

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 134 and 187 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337 and 304A - The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 137, 139 and 145 - Importance of cross­examining a witness - There is nothing in the Act to preclude citing of a witness in motor accident claim who has not been named in the list of witnesses in the criminal case. What is essential is that the opposite party should get a fair opportunity to cross examine the concerned witness. Once that is done, it will not be open to them to complain about any prejudice caused to them. If there was any doubt to be cast on the veracity of the witness, the same should have come out in cross examination, for which opportunity was granted to the respondents by the Tribunal.

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 279, 337 & 338 - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -  S.181 -  Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court has to keep in mind that the standard of proof required in a criminal case is that it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused alone who had committed the offence.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S. 50 -  Transfer of ownership -  Even though in law there would be a transfer of ownership of the vehicle, that, by itself, would not absolve the party, in whose name the vehicle stands in RTO records, from liability to a third person - Merely because the vehicle was transferred does not mean that such registered owner stands absolved of his liability to a third person - So long as his name continues in RTO records, he remains liable to a third person.

Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss 279, 337 & 338 - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - S. 185 -  Driving by a drunken person or by a person under the influence of drugs -  Whether the FIR in such like cases can, in fact, be quashed on the basis of compromise - Though the State has expressed its slight reservation regarding compounding of the offence but I find that this is not such wherein the offence for which the petitioner has been charged can be stricto sensu held to be the offence against the State. Even otherwise, once respondent No.2 has compromised the matter, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would put the petitioner to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the criminal case.