Supreme Court quashes High Court order on further investigation report in road accident case: Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed Shafi (2023) INSC 621

Date of the Judgment: July 13, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 621
Judges: B.V. Nagarathna J., Prashant Kumar Mishra J.
Can a High Court make findings on negligence while considering the correctness of a final police report? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a road accident. The Court overturned a High Court decision that had quashed a police report, emphasizing that such findings should be based on evidence presented in a claim petition and not during criminal proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, with Justice Nagarathna authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On January 1, 2015, a tragic road accident occurred at around 2:15 am on the Kollam-Thiruvananthapuram National Highway. Nixon Abey Matthew, the appellant’s son, was driving a Maruti Alto car with his friends when a gas tanker lorry, driven by Ramar, collided with their vehicle. The accident resulted in the deaths of Nixon and five other passengers in the car. An FIR was initially filed against Nixon for rash and negligent driving under Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, after Nixon’s death, the charges against him were abated.

The appellant, Mathew Alexander, filed a claim petition seeking compensation for his son’s death, naming the owner and driver of the tanker lorry, as well as the insurer, as respondents. Separately, other legal representatives of the deceased passengers also filed claim petitions.

Initial police investigation led to a chargesheet against Nixon, but a subsequent complaint by the appellant regarding irregularities led to a further investigation. A final report from the further investigation concluded that the accident was unavoidable and not due to Nixon’s negligence.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Assistant Commissioner of Police filed a final report against the appellant’s son. However, following a complaint by the appellant, a further investigation was ordered by the JMFC, Paravur, Kollam, under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This further investigation led to a final report dated 29.11.2019, which stated that the accident was unavoidable.

Aggrieved by this final report, Respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Kerala High Court, seeking to quash the report. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the final report and observing that the accident was attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the Alto car. The Supreme Court appeal was filed against this order of the High Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with rash driving or riding on a public way, which endangers human life or is likely to cause injury or hurt to any other person.
• Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses causing death by negligence. It states, “Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This provision allows for further investigation by the police even after a report has been submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. It states, “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2).”
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section pertains to the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the High Court erred in making findings on the rash and negligent driving of his deceased son while considering the correctness of the final report submitted on further investigation.
• The appellant contended that the High Court’s observations were in the nature of findings, which were unnecessary and inappropriate at this stage.
• It was submitted that the High Court should not have quashed the final report based on its findings regarding the cause of the accident.
• The appellant highlighted that the petition under Section 482 of the CrPC was filed two years after the final report, without making the appellant a respondent.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the High Court was correct in quashing the final report, as the incident was attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the Appellant’s son.
• The respondent contended that the High Court’s findings were necessary to ensure justice in the matter.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the final report of the further investigation and making observations on the rash and negligent driving of the appellant’s son?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Anmal, AIR 1980 SC 1354, Supreme Court of India: This case was referred to highlight that a criminal case ending in acquittal does not necessarily mean the civil suit must follow suit. The court observed that “culpable rashness under Section 304-A of IPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability.”
• Bimla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, (2009) 13 SCC 530, Supreme Court of India: The court relied on this case to emphasize that in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal must determine fair compensation based on the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted, “A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants.”
• Dulcina Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646, Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principle that in claim petitions, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, referring to the judgment in Bimla Devi.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court referred to N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Anmal [AIR 1980 SC 1354]* to highlight that the standard of proof for criminal liability is different from that of civil liability.
• The Supreme Court relied on Bimla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation [(2009) 13 SCC 530]* and Dulcina Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz [(2013) 10 SCC 646]* to emphasize that in claim petitions, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The High Court’s overreach in making findings of fact regarding negligence while considering the correctness of the final police report.
• The distinction between the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings and that required in civil claim petitions.
• The procedural impropriety of the High Court in entertaining the petition after a significant delay and without proper representation of all parties.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and procedural correctness, with a focus on ensuring that findings of fact are made in the appropriate forum.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s approach was incorrect and improper. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not have made findings on negligence while considering the final report. Instead, such findings should be based on the evidence presented in the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court noted that the standard of proof in criminal cases is different from that in civil claim petitions, where the preponderance of probabilities is sufficient.

The court stated, “The opinion s expressed which are in the nature of find ings while considering the correctness or otherwise of the final report submitted on a further investigation of the case and thereby quashing the same is , in our view, not a correct and proper approach adopted by the High Court.”

Further, the court observed, “Insofar as the claim petition filed by the Appellant herein is concerned, alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry and pickup van in causing the accident has to be proved. That is a matter which has to be considered on the basis of preponderance of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”

The court also noted that, “The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilit ies. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident.”

Key Takeaways

✓ High Courts should refrain from making findings on negligence while considering the correctness of final police reports.

✓ Findings on negligence should be based on evidence presented in claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

✓ The standard of proof in civil claim petitions is based on the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and allowed the appeal. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts should not make findings of fact regarding negligence while considering the correctness of a final police report. Such findings are to be made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal based on the evidence presented in the claim petition. This judgment reinforces the distinction between criminal and civil proceedings and clarifies the standard of proof in claim petitions. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the procedure to be followed by the High Court in such cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case clarifies the roles of the High Court and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in cases involving road accidents. The High Court should not make findings on negligence while considering the correctness of a final police report. Such findings should be based on evidence presented in claim petitions, where the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, emphasizing the need for procedural correctness and the appropriate forum for determining liability in such cases.