SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 85

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH
VINAY JOSHI, M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
Rahul S/o. Rajendra Jain & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Writ Petition No. 123 of 2023 With Criminal Application Nos. 259, 258 of 2023
Decided On : 11-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Shri F.T. Mirza, a/w Shri Shaml J. Kadu, Shri A.S. Mardikar, Sr. Adv. a/b Shri Ved Deshpande.
For the State : Shri Anup Badar, Addl. P.P.
For the Intervener : Shri Ishant V. Tambi.

Headnote:

Inherent Jurisdiction - Quashing of FIR - IPC 304-A, 308, 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 264 and 268 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, emphasizing the duty of the Corporation to enforce the obligation to remove dangerous structures. The court also highlighted the provisions of Section 304 of the IPC, focusing on the duty of the Municipal Officers and the prima facie case against the accused.

Fact of the Case:

An old dilapidated building collapsed, resulting in the death of five laborers. The Corporation Officers and the owner of the building were accused of negligence and intentional delay in removing the dangerous structure. The court considered the duty of the Corporation to enforce the obligation to remove dangerous structures and the prima facie case against the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Corporation Officers did not fulfill their duty to remove the dangerous structure, and a prima facie case existed against the accused. The court emphasized the duty of the Municipal Officers and the prima facie case against the accused.

Issues: The issues revolved around the duty of the Corporation to enforce the obligation to remove dangerous structures, the prima facie case against the accused, and the application of Section 304 of the IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the duty of the Corporation to enforce the obligation to remove dangerous structures and found a prima facie case against the accused, highlighting the application of Section 304 of the IPC.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications and petition, finding a prima facie case against the accused and emphasizing the duty of the Municipal Officers. The court extended interim protection to facilitate the petitioner to challenge the order before a higher forum.

JUDGMENT :

Vinay Joshi, J.

1. By invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner/applicants are seeking to quash the First Information Report bearing Crime No.540 of 2022 registered with the Kotwali Police Station, Amravati City for the offence punishable under Section 304-A, 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’). All proceedings relating to the same First Information Report (‘FIR) raises a common issue for consideration hence, they are taken together for disposal.

2. Since anticipated things happened at the cost of five human lives we recall a proverb ‘Think of devil and devil is here’. An old dilapidated building consisting of ground plus two floors collapsed on 30.10.2022 claiming life of five innocent labourer. Initially, the crime was registered under Section 304-A of the IPC at the instance of applicant Suhash Chauhan a Deputy Engineer (designated Officer) at Municipal Corporation, Amravati, who has been arraigned as an accused during the course of investigation. Applicant Suhas Chauhan was the Executing Authority of the administrative orders passed by the Municipal Commissioner. He owns a responsibility of regulating the construction and other related activities within the jurisdiction of Amravati Municipal Corporation (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’).

3. A building known as ‘Rajendra Lodge and Commercial Building’ situated at Prabhat Square, Amravati was in dilapidated ruins condition which led to declare it as a dangerous felling in (C-1) category. The Corporation has issued notices to the owner and occupants of the tenement in terms of Section 264, 268 and 397A of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the MMC Act’). 1st and 2nd floor of the building was occupied by a lodging house owned by applicant Rahul Jain. Ground floor consisting of five shops was owned by different persons. The 100 years old building became dangerous and declared so. Ground floor occupants have procured a Structural Engineers Stability Certificate of the ground floor premises. In response to the notices, 1st and 2nd floor was demolished by its owner applicant Rahul Jain on 23.07.2022. However the ground floor portion was not demolished. One of the shop owner Mr. Shaha started repairs work which resulted into collapsing of entire structure. In said mishap five workers burried under debris and died.

4. Initially, applicant Suhas Chauhan (the Corporation Officer) has lodged the report against one of the shop owner Harshal Shaha and Sushila Shaha, who became a cause for collapse by starting repairs without permission. Registration of crime has rolled the process of investigation. During the course of investigation, applicant Suhas Chauhan (Deputy Engineer) and applicant Ajay Vinchurkar (Sectional Engineer) as well as applicant Rahul Jain (owner of 1st and 2nd floor) were arraigned as an accused by adding Sections 304, 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Both employees of the Corporation i.e. Suhas Chauhan and Ajay Vinchurkar have questioned the tenability of prosecution stating that they have no role in the alleged mishap. Likewise, applicant Rahul Jain also sought to quash FIR stating that he has already demolished 1st and 2nd floor however he has been falsely implicated. Ill fated widow of one of the deceased has intervened in all petitions/applications by blaming applicants jointly responsible for the occurrence. In short intervener has endevoured to impress that applicants are also equally responsible with Shaha couple for mishap, which resulted into loss of lives and therefore, the resistance.

5. For the sake of convenience it would be apposite on our part to make brief reference of the events in tabular form, as below :

Dated

Event

31.07.2019

First notice of the Corporation under Sections 264, 268 and 397A of the MMC Act to all occupants of the building.

28.02.2020

Second notice of the Corporation as above.

09.03.2020

Reply by applicant Rahul Jain t

                  Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                  1
                  2
                  3
                  4
                  5
                  6
                  7
                  8
                  9
                  10
                  11
                  SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                  supreme today icon
                  logo-black

                  An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                  Please visit our Training & Support
                  Center or Contact Us for assistance

                  qr

                  Scan Me!

                  India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                  For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                  whatsapp-icon Back to top