Kerala High Court news: The Kerala High Court recently quashed all criminal proceedings against a bus driver accused of hitting a judicial officer’s official vehicle, resulting in the injury of the car driver, holding that the incident, at best, amounted to a motor accident and did not attract criminal liability.Justice Syam Kumar V M noted that the First Information Report (FIR) did not disclose any allegation indicating that the bus driver had any criminal intent to obstruct the car driver or deter a public servant from discharging official duties.The Kerala High Court was hearing the appeal filed by one Shajeer, the bus driver, who was charged under Section 324 (causing hurt via dangerous means) and Section 353 (assault on public servants) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.Also Read | ‘Consumers don’t do meticulous comparisons’: Kerala High Court backs LAZZA in HAZZA copyright row“The said statute (Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984) was never intended to deal with isolated incidents like the one at hand, which lack an element of assault and criminal force aimed at destroying a ‘Public Property’ and would fall more within the category of motor accident,” the February 9 order read.The bus driver was seeking the quashing of all the criminal proceedings against him, initiated based on a complaint filed by the driver of the judicial officer’s vehicle.‘Not public transport’The Kerala High Court pointed out that in the case at hand, the ‘public property’ involved is the official car of the judicial officer.It held that although such a vehicle may qualify as public property, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act applies only to specifically enumerated categories of property, such as public transport, and cannot be extended to all forms of public property in a general sense.Since the judge’s official car does not fall within the category of ‘public transport’, the provisions of the Act were held to be inapplicable.The Kerala High Court further observed that the statute was never intended to cover isolated incidents like the present one, which lack any element of assault, criminal force, or deliberate destruction.The court held that none of the charges levelled against the petitioner is even prima facie found to be sustainable. The high court allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed the quashing of all the criminal proceedings initiated against him.Also Read | No age proof? Why Kerala High Court upheld a POCSO conviction based on an 8-year-old’s word‘No allegation of assault in FIR’It was noted by the Kerala High Court that in the FIR, there is absolutely no allegation to indicate that the petitioner had any criminal intent to obstruct the complainant or to deter any public servant from the discharge of official duties.To constitute an offence for assaulting a public servant, there must be an actual assault or criminal force against the public servant while they are on duty or to stop them from performing their duty, it was pointed out.The court further added that what is intended is much more than a mere ‘obstruction’ to performing the official duty.There must be the use of physical energy against the person with the intent to prevent him from performing his lawful duties.The Kerala High Court added that for an offence under IPC Section 324 (causing hurt via dangerous means), the hurt should be caused by means of any dangerous weapon or dangerous means as contemplated under the provision.In the present case, there is absolutely no allegation whatsoever regarding the use of any dangerous weapon or ‘dangerous means’ by the petitioner.Accident, injury and criminal proceedingsThe prosecution’s case is that on April 4, 2018, at about 9.30 am, the complainant, who was serving as the driver of the official vehicle of a judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT), was discharging his official duty and had reached near Indira Junction.It was claimed that the accused, who was driving a private bus named “Thasahil”, allegedly overtook the said car from the right side and collided with the rear portion of the back door of the vehicle. It was further alleged that despite the judge’s driver sounding the horn, the accused did not stop the bus and continued to drive the same in a rash and negligent manner.Story continues below this adAs a result of the said act, the right side front door of the car was damaged, and the glass pane was shattered, the fragments of which allegedly caused injuries to the driver of the judge’s car.No public transportAppearing for the petitioner, advocate Gokul Das V V H contended before the Kerala High Court that the vehicle driven by the complainant does not fall within the definition of “public transport” and therefore the said provision cannot be attracted as against the petitioner.Also Read | ‘Unclean toilets, contamination’: Kerala High Court slams Devaswom Board over poor facilities at Kodungallur templeIt was further contended that to attract the offence of assault on public servants, the prosecution must establish that there was an assault or use of criminal force against a public servant while he was acting in the execution of his duty, or with the intention to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by him in the discharge of such duty.However, he added that the allegations in the FIR and final report do not even prima facie disclose any act amounting to assault or use of criminal force against the complainant to attract the said provision.Story continues below this adDriver injuredOn the contrary, the public prosecutor Maya M N submitted before the Kerala High Court that the complainant was a public servant who was discharging his official duty as the driver of the official vehicle of the judge of MACT, at the relevant time.Therefore, the act of the accused in driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner and causing damage to the vehicle, thereby obstructing the de facto complainant in the discharge of his official duty, would attract the offence of assaulting a public servant, she added.It was further contended that the injuries sustained by the complainant were the direct consequence of the act of the accused, and therefore, the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence under Section 324 are prima facie made out. It was also submitted that an amount of Rs 60,000 had to be incurred for repairing the damages sustained by the vehicle after the incident.