IMPORTANT POINT
Causing death by negligence—Criminal proceeding cannot be quashed.

JUDGMENT

R.K. Gauba, J.—The work of development of DLF Capital Green Project at a construction site described as 15, Shivaji Marg, Delhi-110 015 owned by DLF Universal Limited (“the land owner company”) was underway in May, 2014, the contract for said construction work having been entrusted by the said land owner company to M/s. Larsen and Toubro Limited (“the construction contractor company”). On 17.05.2014, at about 3:50 p.m. a worker named Ankit Kumar, engaged as a painter at the level of 18th floor of Tower No.14, while applying paint on the face of the exterior wall, fell down to the ground suffering serious injuries that resulted in his death.

2. The matter was reported, inter alia, to the Station House Officer of Police Station Moti Nagar who registered first information report (FIR) No.429/2014 and took up the investigation into offences suspected to have been committed, they being punishable under Section 288 (negligent conduct with respect to pulling down or repairing building) and Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The investigation into the said FIR resulted in report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) being submitted to seek prosecution of one Shahzad son of Abdul Gani on the accusations of his complicity in the said offences under Sections 288/304-A IPC for the reasons that he was the supervisor engaged by the sub-contractor Anwar Ahmad, to whom the work in question had been allocated by the construction contractor company, the death being attributable to acts of commission or omission on his part.

3. Simultaneous to the aforesaid report to the police and initiation of action by it vis-à-vis the aforementioned cognizable offences, the mater was also brought to the notice of the authorities in the office of labour commissioner, Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, particularly the Inspector of Building and Construction. The inquiries made by the said authorities culminated in a criminal complaint (CC No.55F1/14) being presented in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 10.07.2014 by the Inspector of Building and Construction (also Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories), the complaint alleging offence punishable under Section 47 of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (“the Building and Construction Workers Act”, for short). The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance by order dated 10.09.2014 and issued summons on the said complaint, inter alia, against the petitioners who have approached this court invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the captioned petitions seeking the proceedings arising out of the said criminal complaint case to be quashed on the ground the same is in the nature of abuse of the process of the court.

4. It may be mentioned here that the criminal complaint in which summoning order was passed which is impugned here, fifteen (15) persons were shown in the fray as accused, they including the land owner company and the construction contractor company, five of the accused persons being associated with the land owner company while eight others connected to the construction contractor company.

5. Though it was pointed out that in the impugned order dated 10.09.2014 whereby the petitioners have been summoned by the Metropolitan Magistrate, there is a reference to Section 179 of the Factories Act which was wholly uncalled for, the learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that it having been well-understood by all concerned that the summoning order is for the offence under Section 47 of the Building and Construction Workers Act on account of breach of the rules framed thereunder, they press these petitions for quashing of the said summoning order on merits on the grounds indicated hereafter.

6. The petitions of the land owner company (petitioner in Crl.M.C.2064/2015), its Chairman Mohit Gujral (petitioner in Crl.M.C.206