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

2026 Supreme(Gau) 629

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J. 
Pratyush Pratim Debnath, S/o. Diganta Kr. And – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam Anr Rep. By the ld. Pp to the govt. Of Assam – Respondent 
Crl.Pet. 1064 of 2023 
Decided On : 07-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms M N Konyak, Mr G Choudhury Advocate
For the Respondent: Pp, Assam, Mr H R Choudhury, S. Talukdar, A S Prodhani

Criminal proceedings against public servants for negligence cannot be quashed on the ground of lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC, as negligent acts or omissions do not constitute acts performed in the discharge of official duty, and the court will not interfere if a prima facie case exists.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304(A) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Electricity Act, 2003 - Sections 151, 153 - Death by electrocution - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Allegation of negligence against public servants in maintaining high-voltage lines - Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when prima facie evidence exists - Held, no, if allegations disclose a cognizable offence, the court should not interfere. (Paras 2, 3, 36)

(B) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197 - Prosecution of public servants - Requirement of prior sanction - Applicability - Protection is available only when the alleged act is committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty - Negligence in performing duties does not constitute an act done in the discharge of official duty - Sanction not required for acts of omission or negligence. (Paras 13, 31, 34)

Facts of the case:
An individual died due to electrocution after coming into contact with a low-hanging high-voltage wire. A criminal case was registered against the officials responsible for the maintenance of the electrical infrastructure, alleging negligence. The accused sought to quash the criminal proceedings and the charge sheet, contending that there was no negligence on their part, that the victim was responsible for the incident, and that the prosecution was barred for want of mandatory sanction under the relevant procedural code.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the allegations in the complaint and the materials collected during the investigation established a prima facie case of negligence. It was held that the protection regarding prior sanction for prosecution is not applicable when the act complained of is not performed in the discharge of official duty. The court further noted that the jurisdictional bar under the electricity legislation did not apply to the facts of the case.

Issues: The main issues were whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under the inherent powers of the court, whether the accused were entitled to protection for want of prior sanction, and whether the allegations constituted a prima facie case of criminal negligence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the inherent power to quash proceedings is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the allegations do not constitute an offence. Since the accused were alleged to have been negligent in their duties, and such negligence does not qualify as an act done in the discharge of official duty, the requirement for prior sanction was not triggered. Consequently, the court refused to interfere with the ongoing criminal process.

Result: Criminal petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of fir and background of electrocution incident. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments against cognizance regarding sanction and procedural requirements. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. respondent and prosecution arguments regarding negligence and liability. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. inapplicability of section 197 crpc for negligent official acts. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
5. refusal to quash proceedings based on bhajan lal guidelines. (Para 35 , 36 , 37)

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

Heard Mr. G. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Addl. PP, Assam for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. H. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/informant.

2. This is an application filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of the FIR dated 07.05.2019, which was registered as Badarpur P.S. Case No. 121/2019 registered under Section 304(A) of IPC corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1044/2019 along with the Charge Sheet No. 177/2022 filed therein.

3. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a complaint was lodged by one Anwarul Hoque Mazumder, respondent No.2 before the Officer-in-Charge of Badarpur Police Station with the allegation that while his son, namely, Ansarul Hoque Mazumder was proceeding from his house at Alakulipur towards his firm at Debendranagar through PWD road and when he reached near his firm, one of the overhead high voltage electric wire, which was already hanging dangerously low level, suddenly came down further and touched the head of his son, as a result of which, his son died on the spot and after the said accident he was rushed to Railway Hospital, Badarpur, where Doctor declared him dead. Autopsy over his dead body was also conducted at the Civil Hospital on the same day of the accident.

4. It is further alleged by the complainant that there was a long pending panic in the local people about the said dangerously hanging electric wire and one of them made written complaint to the authority of APDCL, Badarpur Sub Division in that regard, but authority concerned did not pay any attention to his complaint.

5. After receipt of the said FIR, a case has been registered as Badarpur P.S. Case No. 121/2019 under Section 304(A) of IPC. After investigation, police accordingly filed the charge sheet on the basis of the said complaint against both the petitioners, who are serving as SDE and Junior Manager, respectively under the APDCL, Badarpur.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the allegation which has been made in the said complaint does not make out a case against the petitioners. Even though it is stated that there was long pending panic situation in the local people about the said dangerously hanging electrical wire is not true and there was no such written complaint received by the authority concerned. He further submitted that no offence is made out under Section 304(A) IPC and the victim died only due to his own negligence and it is not for the negligent act of the petitioners. The petitioners have been implicated in the instant case by the informant only to harass, humiliate and spite them in the eyes of the eyes of the society and police also submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners without any proper investigation.

7. However, after getting the information about the said incident, the petitioners along with other staff had rushed to the place of occurrence and it was observed that due to heavy thunder and hailstorm on the preceding night some of the electricity posts had bent and due to which only there occurred a slack of electricity over head lines and the victim knowing fully well, about the slackness, which was visible even through the naked eye went underneath the wires and tried to lift the cable and he got pulled to the electricity cable and got electrocuted. But the learned Trial Court without considering this aspect of the case,

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