"Accountability in Vehicle Ownership: The Case of Dhiraj Kumar Singh and a Road Accident in Bihar"

 


Introduction

This case, heard in the Patna High Court, revolves around an auto accident in Madhubani, Bihar, and the legal responsibilities tied to vehicle ownership. The petitioner, Dhiraj Kumar Singh, sought to quash the criminal proceedings against him under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deal with reckless driving and causing injuries.

The Incident

On December 11, 2018, Chandan Kumar, the son of the informant, boarded an auto-rickshaw. Another unregistered auto, allegedly driven recklessly, collided with the one he was in. As a result, Chandan Kumar suffered injuries. The driver of the offending vehicle fled the scene, leaving the auto behind. The injured was taken to Madhubani Hospital for treatment, and later, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on January 20, 2019.

The Legal Developments

The police investigated the case and filed a charge sheet against Dhiraj Kumar Singh, the owner of D.K. Automobiles, a dealership selling Bajaj auto-rickshaws. The police alleged that the offending vehicle was linked to him, and based on the case diary and evidence, the lower court took cognizance against him in January 2020.

The Petitioner’s Arguments

Dhiraj Kumar Singh claimed he had no connection with the accident as he had already sold the auto involved in the incident to one Sanjay Kumar Ray before the accident. He argued:

  • The vehicle was insured under Sanjay Kumar Ray’s name on December 10, 2018, a day before the accident.
  • The court had already released the vehicle to Sanjay Kumar Ray, proving that the auto was not in Singh’s possession.

The Court’s Observations

The court found discrepancies in Singh’s claims:

  • As a vehicle dealer, he should have had a proper sale receipt or documentation proving the transfer of ownership. However, he failed to provide any such record.
  • Instead of presenting his own records, Singh relied on documents provided by Sanjay Kumar Ray.
  • He could not explain why the sale details of the vehicle were missing from his showroom records.

The Verdict

The court dismissed Singh’s petition, stating that the lower court was right in taking cognizance of the case. It ruled that the petitioner failed to produce basic evidence of the sale, and thus, the charges against him stood valid.

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of proper documentation in business transactions, especially when legal liabilities are involved. It also reinforces that courts rely on concrete evidence rather than verbal claims when determining responsibility in legal matters.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NiMxNzU1NyMyMDIxIzEjTg==-hkHMy9SuFSw=