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

2021 Supreme(Chh) 103

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
S.Murli, S/o Shri H.R. Shivkumaran – Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through – The Station House Officer, Police Station Dabhra – Respondents
CRMP No. 1057 of 2014 And Cr.M.P. No. 165 of 2015
Decided On : 18-08-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Devendra Pratap Singh, Deputy Advocate General

Headnote:

Constitution of India,1950 - Article 20(2) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,1973 - Sections 482 and 300 - Sea Customs Act - Section 167(8) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 304-A/34 - Factories Act, 1948 - Sections 2(m), 105 and 7 A (2)(d) - Death due to negligence - Double jeopardy - Whether initiation of prosecution under Section 304-A of IPC against petitioners will amount to double jeopardy, - Allegation made in FIR and Police report, it is crystal clear that offence under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC is not made out against petitioners, therefore, registration of FIR in connection with Crime and subsequent charge-sheet filed by the Police Station criminal Case - Thermal Power plant said Company has given its construction work to Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd. and said Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd., in turn, has given a contract to M/s Brothers Engineering and said M/s Brothers Engineering entrusted the work to M/s Preety Erectors - Erectors was executing the work, one of the workers namely Gogli Prasad, while working, met with an accident and during the course of treatment - Police of Police Station registered an FIR being Crime for the offence punishable under Section 304-A/34 of Indian Penal Code against petitioner and three others. After usual investigation, the police has charge sheet/ final report before Judicial Magistrate First Class – Held, Criminal liability as the petitioner was only responsible for providing technical direction and petitioner does not supervise contractor and their worker. It is further contended that there was no iota of evidence against the petitioner either in FIR or in the police report, therefore, continuation of criminal proceeding is abuse of process of law - Judgment cited by the petitioner in case reported in AIR SCW judgment of this Court in case are not applicable to the present facts of the case. In the case of A.S. Ali, the facts are that students of school had gone to educational tour to Sirpur and three students were found dead on account of drowning - Court has quashed the proceeding under Section 304 of IPC, whereas in the present, accident took place in factory and whether the accident took place on account of negligencey of the petitioner or not cannot be examined by this Court without evaluating the evidence - Petitions are dismissed

ORDER :

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth 'the Code'), they heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Petitioner – S. Murali has filed the petition Cr.M.P. No. 1057/2014 challenging the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 428/2014 pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa arising out of the FIR No. 65/14 registered at Police Station Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa for the offence punishable under Section 304-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Petitioner – N. Krishna Kumar has filed the petition Cr.M.P. No. 165/2015 challenging the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 406/2014 pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raigarh, District Raigarh arising out of the FIR No. 33/2014 registered at Police Station Kotra Road, Distt. Raigarh for the offence punishable under Section 304-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code. [For the sake of convenience, Cr.M.P. No. 1057/2014 is taken-up as lead case]

3. Brief facts are projected by the petitioners are that the petitioners are working on the posts of Executive Vice President & Deputy General Manager, respectively in M/s RKM Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-TN, which is establishing a 4/360 MW coal based thermal Power plant at Dabhra, Distt. Janjgir-Champa. The said Company has given its construction work to Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd. and the said Axon Construction Pvt. Ltd., in turn, has given a contract to M/s Brothers Engineering and the said M/s Brothers Engineering entrusted the work to M/s Preety Erectors. While the Preeti Erectors was executing the work, one of the workers namely Gogli Prasad, while working, met with an accident on 03.10.2013 and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 18.10.2013. Thereafter, the Police of Police Station Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa registered an FIR being Crime No.65/2014 on 27.02.2014 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and three others. After usual investigation, the police has submitted the charge sheet/ final report before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District Janjgir-Champa on 16.07.2014, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 428/2014 for committing offence punishable under Section 304- A/34 of IPC,

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions would submit that the petitioners’ establishment where the accident took place, is a factory as defined in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948, which is extracted below :-

    “Section 2(m) : “factory” means any premises including the precincts thereof-

(i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or

(ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any date of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that since the establishment where the accident took place is a Factory premises as defined under Section 2(m) of the Factory Act, 1948 and the said incident had occurred due to negligence of the deceased/employee, therefore, a complaint under Section 105 of the Factory Act, 1948 has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Labour Court), Janjgir- Champa which was registered as Criminal Case No. 106/FA/2013 (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Dr. S. Arumugam) against the occupier of the factory for alleged negligence of the occupier which is violation of Section 7 A (2)(d) of the Factory Act, 1948, which is extracted below:-

    “[7A. General duties of the occupier.- (1) Every occupier shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health,

                    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