1. Appeal against dismissal of petition to quash FIR and chargesheet under Section 336 IPC involving an employee electrocuted while repairing a power line. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1254
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Dinesh Dutt - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3326 Of 2024
Decided On : 12-08-2024
Important Points
The High Court erred in dismissing the petition to quash the FIR as the ingredients of the offence under Section 336 IPC were not established against the appellant.
Subject
Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 336 - Quashing of FIR - The High Court dismissed the application for quashing FIR no. 27/19, stating that issues should be raised before the Trial Court - The appellant, an employee of the Electricity Department, sustained injuries due to negligence of another official - The FIR did not establish the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 336 IPC against the appellant - The High Court's refusal to quash the proceedings was deemed erroneous as the allegations did not constitute an offence against the appellant. (Paras 1, 4, 14, 18)
(B) Inherent Powers - The High Court failed to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of law, as the FIR did not provide sufficient grounds for proceeding against the appellant. (Paras 8, 17)
(B) Inherent Powers - The High Court failed to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of law, as the FIR did not provide sufficient grounds for proceeding against the appellant. (Paras 8, 17)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mithu Jain, AOR, Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, AOR, Mr. Sarthak Chiller, Adv., Mr. Rohit Lochav, Adv., Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi , AOR
For the Appellant : Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Sr. Adv., Ms. Mithu Jain, AOR, Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, AOR, Mr. Sarthak Chiller, Adv., Mr. Rohit Lochav, Adv., Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi , AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether ingredients of Section 336 IPC are absent and whether the High Court erred in refusing to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. The appellant was the victim of another's negligence; the FIR and chargesheet fail to prima facie establish rashness or negligence endangering the public. (Para 14 , 17 )
4. Criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC if allegations, taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. Appeal allowed, High Court order set aside, and the FIR and chargesheet quashed. (Para 19 )
6. When can a High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC?
Proceedings can be quashed to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice, specifically when allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or are inherently improbable. (Para 16 , 17 )
7. What are the essential ingredients for an offence under Section 336 IPC?
The offence requires showing that the accused committed an act rashly or negligently, thereby endangering the life or personal safety of the public. (Para 6 , 14 )
8. Can a High Court refuse to quash an FIR simply to allow the Trial Court to decide the issues?
No, if the FIR and chargesheet, taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence, the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC rather than deferring to the Trial Court. (Para 17 , 18 )
ORDER :
1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the order dated 29.12.2021 in Crl. Petition No.692/2019 whereby the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has dismissed the application under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, “CrPC”), for quashing FIR no. 27/19 dated 03.03.2019 under Section 336 of Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, “IPC”) and final report under section 173 CrPC.
2. The factual background is that an FIR Crime No. 27/19 was registered on 03.03.2019 at the instance of one Smt. Meena w/o Sh. Babu Ram. It was alleged in the FIR that on 03.03.2019 at about 10:30 PM the complainant witnessed a loud blast from an electricity pole located about 100 meters away from her house, where she saw the appellant herein hanging on that pole being electrocuted. It was further alleged that this incident happened because of the carelessness of some person from the concerned electricity department by resuming electricity supply from behind. On the said FIR, a chargesheet came to be filed under Section 336 of IPC. The appellant herein is the man who incurred injuries from the electricity pole, as he was working in the Electricity Department. It is the same appellant that has sustained the injuries, that is the accused in the said criminal proceedings.
3. Aggrieved by the said chargesheet, the appellant approached the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC praying to quash the entire proceedings arising out of FIR no. 27/19 of Kandaghat Police Station, Solan, H.P.
4. The High Court vide order dated 29.12.2021 dismissed the said Criminal Petition and declined to interfere with the criminal proceedings based on the reasoning that all the issues raised by the appellant can be and should be raised by him before the Trial Court rather than raising them directly before the High Court in the first instance via petition under Section 482 of CrPC. Accordingly, the High Court ordered the proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC to be closed with liberty to the appellant to raise all the issues before the Trial Court.
5. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the High Court, refusing to quash the criminal proceedings, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
6. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court has erred in law by dismissing the petition as necessary ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 336 of IPC i.e., it must and ought to be shown that the accused committed the act rashly and negligently, endangering to the life of the public, are not made out in the FIR. Moreover, the appellant was doing his job as assigned to him by the Electricity Department officials and it is due to the negligence of the Electricity Department that the appellant had to incur severe body burns and injuries.
7. It is further submitted that the allegations in the complaint must have a reasonable nexus with the result caused. However, in this case only the appellant incurred injuries resulting from the sudden turning on of the electricity by the officials, and no other person was endangered.
8. It is further submitted that the High Court has erred in law by not exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process against the appellant in the interest of justice as there is absolutely no evidence on record to constitute an offence under Section 336 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the appellant.
9. It is further submitted that the High Court has not appreciated the law laid down in Varala Bharath Kumar v. The State Of Telangana , Criminal Appeal No. 1565/2017; Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State of NCT of Delhi , Criminal Appeal No. 1263-67 of 2019; Criminal 10 Appeal No 122/ 2022, Veena Mittal v. State of UP & Ors.
10. Per contra the Ld. counsels appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 & 3 have vehemently opposed the present appeal.
11. Heard Ld. counsels appearing on both sides and perused the relevant documents placed on record.
