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

2025 Supreme(Guj) 580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Rameshbhai Parshottambhai Donga and Others - Appellants
Versus 
State of Gujarat and Another - Respondents 
Criminal Misc. Application (For Quashing & Set Aside Fir/Order) No. 13806 of 2020
Decided On : 19-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pratik B. Barot
For the Respondent: Soham Joshi

The court upheld that a prima facie case under Section 304 IPC exists due to negligence leading to a worker's death, and the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 and 304A - Quashing of FIR - Applicants sought to quash FIR for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, arguing lack of intention or knowledge - Court held that prima facie case under Section 304 IPC exists due to negligence in safety measures leading to worker's death - FIR cannot be quashed at this stage as investigation is pending. (Paras 1, 4, 25)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent powers of High Court - High Court's power under Section 482 should be exercised sparingly and with caution, not to stifle legitimate prosecution - The court must not conduct a mini-trial at this stage. (Paras 8, 24)

Facts of the case:
The applicants, partners of a biodiesel factory, were accused of negligence leading to the death of a worker due to an explosion caused by unsafe working conditions. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under Section 304 IPC, indicating negligence and potential culpability of the applicants. (Paras 25, 28)

Issues: Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the absence of intention or knowledge required for culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC. (Paras 12, 20)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage as it indicates a prima facie case of culpable homicide due to negligence, and the investigation must proceed to clarify the facts. (Paras 25, 28)

Result: Petition dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The High Court should exercise Section 482 powers sparingly and not conduct a mini-trial at the quashing stage (!) (!) (!) . - The FIR must be read to determine if a prima facie case under 304 IPC exists or if 304A applies; quashing is not warranted at the threshold when material may show intent/knowledge (Part I/II of 304 vs 304A) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court held that, given investigation pending and the face-value reading of the FIR, a prima facie case under 304 IPC due to negligence can be made, so the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage; 304 vs 304A can be decided in trial or on completion of investigation (!) (!) . - Precedents emphasize cautious use of 482 to avoid stifling legitimate prosecution; ends of justice may require not quashing (!) (!) (!) . - The petition was ultimately dismissed; interim relief directing investigation suspension was later vacated (!) . - The FIR details alleged lack of safety measures, permitting untrained labor, absence of permit, and flammable hazards leading to death, forming the basis for potential 304 IPC culpable homicide not amounting to murder (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

What is the test for exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR at the threshold?

What is the distinction between sections 304 and 304A of the IPC as applied to a factory accident case?

What factors prevent the High Court from conducting a mini-trial while considering quashing an FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?


JUDGMENT :

(J.C. DOSHI, J.)

1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-11213015201170 of 2020 registered with Gondal City Police Station, District Rajkot Rural for the offences under Sections 304 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present applicants.

2. Relief claimed in the application reads as under :-

"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this application;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. 1-11213015201170 of 2020 registered with Gondal City Police Station, Dist.: Rajkot Rural, dated 18.08.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, investigation thereon and all consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR;

(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the proceedings of C.R. No. 1-11213015201170 of 2020 registered with Gondal City Police Station, Dist.: Rajkot Rural, dated 18.08.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, investigation thereon and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR;

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case"

3. Factual narration in brief leading to filing of petition are as under :-

3.1. It is case of the prosecution inter alia alleging that the present applicants original accused being partners of one Donga Biofuel Factory, since the factory is in manufacturing of Biodiesel by resorting to dangerous process undertaken by them, in such a work and a process to be undertaken within the factory premises with the help of labour, it is alleged that the present applicants being partners of the said factory have been responsible in not providing any sort of training to the workers as also procuring a work permit under the factory premises, in absence of necessary fire safety measures and in absence of a technical expert as expected to remain physically present at the factory premises; they have been negligent as partners of the said factory by not installing flame proof electrification system and/or first aid fire fighting system, in seeing to it that a dangerous process is undertaken without even a deep pipe applied over the storage tank as and when a dangerous material is being transferred overhead nor any safety wall is kept in a near periphery of the said storage tank, on account of such negligence only, one worker namely Pratapbhai Gopalbhai Bamaniya, on account of a source of spark flair up near a vent pipe, a flammable atmosphere was created because of which the deceased Pratapbhai was thrown out of the top of the storage tank because of the pressure applied and eventually passed away on account of such accident. Hence, FIR is registered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code as against all the partners of the Donga Biofuel Factory.

4. Learned advocate Mr.Pratik Barot for the applicants putting FIR in microscopic analysis submitted that the petitioners who are partners of Donga Biofuel Factory, in which, accident took place resulting into death of employee / labourer - Pratapbhai Bamaniya, were not physically present at the time of accident. He would submit that in FIR offence under section 304 of IPC has been alleged against the applicants but on plain reading of FIR, what could be noticed that during process of preparing final bio fuel, accident took place in the factory due to which boiler was exposed, having ultimate result of unfortunate death of labourer. However, in such circumstances, more particularly, for accident which took place in factory premises, offence under section 304 of IPC cannot be attracted to the applicants as either intention or knowledge which are essential ingredients to

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