Bus brushing against judge's car while overtaking not assault on public servant: Kerala HC grants bus driver relief

The Kerala High Court recently quashed a criminal case filed against a bus driver accused of colliding with a judicial officer's official car while overtaking it [Shajeer v State of Kerala]..Justice Syam Kumar VM noted that the bus had only slightly brushed against the judicial officer's car, which was not unusual when a vehicle overtakes another. He found that the case at best was a motor accident case, but did not involve the alleged criminal offences of assaulting a public servant or damaging public property.The Court, therefore, quashed the case filed against the bus driver for the offence under Section 353 (assaulting or using criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging their duty) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)."In the absence of any direct, deliberate or intentional use of force, the mere brushing or contact of the bus against the car in the course of overtaking cannot be brought within the scope and ambit of (Section 353 IPC) Consequently, the essential requirement for attracting Section 353 IPC is wholly absent, and the very foundation for invoking the said provision stands vitiated," the Court held.. The Court also quashed a charge under Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act).The Court noted that even though the judicial officer's vehicle was a government-owned car, it did not fall within the category of public transport or the specific classes of public property. Therefore, no case would lie for the destruction of public property either, the Court held. .The case arose from a 2018 incident in Alappuzha. A private bus driver was accused of overtaking and colliding with a car driven by the official driver of a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) judge.The prosecution claimed that the impact caused damage to the vehicle and that the shattered glass injured the judge's driver. The State, therefore, justified the registration of case against the bus driver, citing offences under Sections 353 and 324 of the IPC along with Section 3(2)(e) of the PDPP Act.The bus driver approached the High Court in 2021 with a plea to quash this case. He contended that there was no intention to cause any harm or obstruct the public servant, and that the incident was purely accidental.The Court, after examining the materials on record, quashed the case. Apart from quashing the charges under Section 353, IPC and the PDPP Act, the Court also held that the charge under Section 324, IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by using dangerous weapons or means) would not stand. The injuries the judicial officer's driver, in this case, were caused due to the shattered glass from an accident-hit vehicle and not intentionally by the bus driver, the Court reasoned. .The bus driver was represented by Advocates Gokul Das VVH, Ameena R, and Poornima S Nair.Public Prosecutor Maya MN appeared for the state..[Read Order]