Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA
Pratyush Pratim Debnath, S/o. Diganta Kr. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
| 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
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....
The High Court can quash FIRs for non-compoundable offences under Section 482 of the CrPC if a settlement is reached and gross negligence is not established, serving the ends of justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for the offence of culpable homicidal death not amounting to murder, the intention or knowledge of causing death is essential, and the absence....
Point of law : A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence.
Negligence under Section 304A IPC requires thorough investigation, and prior reports do not preclude accountability of officers involved.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that heinous offences with a serious impact on society cannot be compromised, while offences affecting private parties can be compromised.
Concurrent prosecutions under the IPC and Factories Act for the same incident are permissible as the laws address different legal elements and liabilities.
Provision of Section 92 of Factories Act, it is clear that Factories Act is not a part of general penalty law but arise out of a breach of a duty provided in it - Offence punishable under Factories A....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and death by negligence, as defined in Section 304 and Section 304A of IPC, respectively.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
