ORDER

Heard Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned AC to GP-4 for the State. Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, learned counsel appears for the informant (Respondent No. 5).

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the petitioner is seeking quashing of the first information report of Patliputra P.S. Case No. 15 of 2017 registered under Sections 337/338/323/308 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution story, when the petitioner was watering flowers in her balcony in flat no. 103, Manav Enclave, Patliputra, Patna, a flower pot fell on her head from flat no. 503 as a result of which she sustained head injury causing bleeding and she became unconscious. It is alleged that she was taken to Ruban Hospital and later on shifted to Paras Hospital. The informant alleged that because of the said injury, she was unable to walk. It is further alleged that in past also, one flower pot had fallen in her balcony from flat no. 503 to which she had protested.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigation of the case is still pending and during the last five years of investigation, it could not be established by sufficient materials that the petitioner is liable for any criminal action for the alleged falling of the flower pot from his balcony. It is his submission that the respondent no. 5 is on the first floor and six more flats are situated over the same flat including the flat of the petitioner and on the balcony of each of the flats, there are flower pots kept by their respective owners.

5. Learned counsel submits that from a reading of the first information report, it will appear that the informant has though alleged that the flower pot of flat no. 503 fell down causing injury on her head but this has not been substantiated in course of investigation.

6. It is submitted that so far as the principles of criminal jurisprudence are concerned, in the nature of the allegations present in this case, the ingredients of Sections 337, 338, 323 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code are not present, hence the petitioner cannot be proceeded against on the strength of the present FIR.

7. It is further submitted that the ingredients of Section 308 also requires intention or knowledge while committing the alleged overt act which is not present in the FIR against the petitioner.

8. Learned Senior Counsel submits that without admitting he would argue that it may at best a case attracting torturous liability and based on the principles laid down in the case of Rylands vs. Fletcher reported in (1868) L. R. 3 H. L. 330 the petitioner may be sued but in no case the FIR may be sustained. He has relied upon some of the English decisions and upon the origin of the Rules laid down by the House of Lords in Rylands (supra) case of 1868 laying down the principles of Strict Liability.

9. Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned AC to GP-4 for the State has, though opposed this application but in course of argument, learned counsel submits that the principles of Rylands (supra) seems to be applicable and it may be a case in which the petitioner may be held liable in torts by following the principles of Strict Liability.

10. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed this application. It is submitted that in past also, a flower pot had fallen down from the balcony of flat no. 503 and in this regard, the petitioner was warned, still the petitioner did not take any remedial measure and placed the flower pots in the balcony which fell down and this time caused head injury to the informant. It is submitted that the case is still under investigation, though more than five years have gone but that should not be made a ground for quashing of the first information report.

11. Learned counsel further submits that at this stage so far as the plea on the principle of Strict Liability is concerned, he would oppose it as a ground for quashing of t