Authority: High Court of Bombay at Goa

Order Date: 11 September 2026 (Reserved on 19 August 2026)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – Arvind Coutinho, son of William A Coutinho, unemployed, residing at Flat No.109, Dreams Skyline Maintenance Housing Society Pvt. Ltd., Calvaddo, Navelim, Salcete, South Goa. Respondents – 1) State of Goa (through Public Prosecutor), 2) Police Inspector, Margao Police Station, 3) Keagan Cardoz, resident of Flat No.110, same housing society.
  • Petition: Quash FIR No.84/2025 (registered 26‑10‑2025) and subsequent Chargesheet No.33/2026 (dated 11‑03‑2026) filed under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 134(a)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
  • Allegations (Prosecution): On 26‑10‑2025, petitioner allegedly rode his scooter rashly within the society premises, struck the 3rd respondent’s left elbow, caused injury, and fled without rendering aid. The FIR invoked Sections 281 (rash driving) and 125(a) (rash/negligent act endangering life) of BNS, and Section 134 of the MV Act (duty to assist).
  • Petitioner’s Contentions: No ingredient of the offences is established; the complaint is false, intended to harass, and there is no injury (hurt certificate indicates ‘simple’ injury). CCTV footage shows no intention or rash conduct.
  • Respondent 3’s Contentions: Sections 281 and 125(a) are correctly invoked; petitioner intentionally caused injury; dispute over garbage dumping does not negate the offence.
  • Prosecution’s Contentions: Prior enmity exists; ambulance was called; witnesses state rash and negligent riding; therefore FIR and chargesheet should stand.
  • Evidence Reviewed: Chargesheet, CCTV footage, hurt certificate (page 79), witness statements.
  • Court Findings:
  • CCTV footage shows the petitioner’s scooter mirror merely touched the respondent’s elbow; no rash, reckless, or negligent driving; speed was very slow; contact was accidental.
  • No injury was caused; hurt certificate indicates no substantive injury.
  • Essential ingredients of Section 281 (rash/negligent driving endangering life) are absent.
  • Essential ingredients of Section 125(a) (rash/negligent act endangering life causing hurt) are absent.
  • No deliberate failure to comply with statutory duties under Section 134 of the MV Act.
  • The FIR is rooted in a long‑standing dispute over society affairs, garbage dumping, and prior complaints by the petitioner, indicating mala‑fide motive.
  • Applying State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) paragraph 102, the case falls within categories (1), (3), (5) and (7) – i.e., allegations do not prima facie constitute an offence, evidence does not disclose commission of offence, allegations are absurd, and proceeding is malicious.
  • The cited judgment in Roopchand v. State of Chhattisgarh is not applicable.

Final Outcome

  • The petition is allowed. The Court quashes FIR No.84/2025 dated 26‑10‑2025 and all consequential proceedings, including any summons, notices, or further criminal action against the petitioner.
  • The chargesheet No.33/2026 dated 11‑03‑2026 and the criminal case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, are also quashed.
  • No order as to costs is made, despite the court’s view that the 3rd respondent abused the process of law.
  • The order will be digitally signed and circulated via fax or email.

Topics: Criminal Procedure, Abuse of Process