Uttarakhand High Court
Mohd. Abbas vs State Of Uttarakhand on 2 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application No. 724 of 2021
02nd April, 2026
Mohd. Abbas -Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
And Another -Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
The present Criminal Misc. Application under section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant for quashing and
setting-aside the cognizance/summoning order dated
08.07.2020, charge sheet dated 06.06.2020 as well as the
entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1579 of 2020, State
Vs. Mohd. Abbas, under Sections 420, 467, 471 of IPC,
pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital.
2. Facts necessary, to appreciate the controversy, briefly
stated, as follows:-
Applicant herein is the owner of the Truck in question,
bearing registration no. UK04E/9756, which was involved
in an accident case dated 25.03.2012. In this case, an FIR
was lodged on the direction of the Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal on 05.11.2019 in which it was alleged that the
2applicant has filed a forged driving licence of his driver in
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Case No. 4 of 2018. After
investigation, chargesheet has been filed under Sections
3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the
applicant was the owner of the truck and the driver of the
vehicle namely Farman @ Saddam has provided the driving
licence bearing Licence No. 3732/Farrukhabad/2005 to the
applicant at the time when he was engaged as a driver by the
applicant and the applicant, in a bonafide manner, submitted
the same in the MACT concerned. It is further submitted that
it was not possible for the applicant (owner of the vehicle) to
get verification of the driving licence from the transport offices
of the different parts of the country at the time of engaging the
driver. Finding the driving licence to be genuine, the applicant
submitted the same to the MACT concerned, thus, there is no
fault on part of the applicant (owner of the vehicle) as he was
not aware that the same was the fake licence and the driver
himself is only responsible and liable for producing the fake
license to the applicant. It is thus further submitted that the
Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Hon’ble Apex Court
has categorically stated in the catena of judgments that if the
driver produces a license, which on the face of it look genuine,
the owner of the vehicle (employer) is not expected to further
investigate into the authenticity of the license unless there is
3
cause to believe otherwise. In this case also, there is no
material on record to establish that the applicant had any
cause to investigate about the authenticity of the driving
license of the driver, which he submitted before the MACT
concerned later. Therefore, no offence could be made out
against the applicant under Sections 420, 467, 471 of IPC
against the applicant
4. Per contra, learned State Counsel would submit that the
applicant has committed a serious offence by producing the
forged driving licence before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,
Tallital, District Nainital.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Other, reported in (2004)
3 SCC 297, in its paragraph no. 110, has broadly dealt with
the similar issue. For ready reference, paragraph no. 110 is
extracted hereinbelow:-
“110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised
in these petitions are as follows:
(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing
compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a
social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to
victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The
provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are
with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be
so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.
4
(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed
under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or
invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section
(2)(a)(ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed
by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence,
fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for
driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences
available to the insurer against either the insured or the third
parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to
prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to
exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of
the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one
who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
(iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid
their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised
in the said proceedings but must also establish ‘breach’ on the part
of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be
on them.
(v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden
would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon
the facts and circumstance of each case.
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of
the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a
valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the
relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its
liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the
condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to
have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in
interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main
purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow
defences available to the insured under section 149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken reasonable
care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the
driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of
law or not will have to be determined in each case.
(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person
having a learner’s licence, the insurance companies would be liable
to satisfy the decree.
(ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read
with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect
of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to
property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said
power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se
between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer
and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for
compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences
to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and
jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the
5insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se
between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of
claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made
thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as
provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of
the award in favour of the claimants.
(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal
arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its
defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2) read
with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the
Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by
the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has
been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the
tribunal.
Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable
and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be
recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector
in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of
land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as
arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3)
of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount
awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of
announcement of the award by the tribunal.
(xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso
thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover
specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to
recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of
the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be
extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by
relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where
on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter
se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.”
7. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the
prosecution has failed to make out any case of forgery or
cheating against the applicant. In such circumstances,
allowing the criminal proceedings to continue against the
applicant would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore,
this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to
secure the ends of justice.
6
8. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous
application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 is allowed and the entire proceedings of
Criminal Case No. 1579 of 2020, State Vs. Mohd. Abbas,
under Sections 420, 467, 471 of IPC, pending in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, is hereby quashed, qua the
applicant.
(Alok Mahra, J.)
02.04.2026
Ujjwal
