Trustees cannot be held vicariously liable for the negligence of workers in a construction accident, and their specific involvement in the construction work must be established for charges to be valid.

1. The petitioners are the Accused in Crime No. 679/2012 dated 06.08.2012 on the file of the first respondent and they have come forward with this petition to quash the FIR against them.

2. The second respondent is the defacto complainant. The allegations in the complaint runs as follows:- The defacto complainant along with other workers are engaged in construction work and that the construction work was undertaken by one Mr.Rajkumar who is the contractor and first accused and the actual construction is undertaken by Mr.Sudanandan, the mason (Maistry) the 2nd accused. The building was constructed as per the direction of the contractors and the mason who are the named accused and they were raising cement pillars and on 06.08.2012, the contractors and mason directed the defacto complainant to construct Arch and the defacto complainant and others protested that the Pillars themselves were wet and therefore if arch is constructed then it will lead to destruction and therefore requested that the arch can be constructed after 10 days for which the contractor and mason overruled their objections and informed them that they will take care of whatever harm that comes in the way and pursuant to the direction of the contractor and mason, they were scaffolding the pillar and at that juncture the pillar as well as the scaffolding gave way and fell down and in the said accident 9 workers lost their lives and 3 persons were seriously injured as a result of which the defacto complainant gave a complaint to the first respondent, who had registered the FIR in Crime No.679 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 338, 304(2) IPC and one person died subsequently and the first petitioner being the trustee of the Institution, was arrested on 09.08.2012 for the above said incident.

3. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the name of the petitioners is not find a place in the FIR and the statements recorded by the police will reveal only about the designation of the petitioners and nothing has been mentioned about the occurrence as well as the participation of the accused at the time of occurrence. Therefore, the petitioners have not committed any of the offence much less the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC. The learned counsel further contended that as on date investigation reveals only against the other accused and not against the present petitioners except one or two references has been made regarding the designation. Except this, they have not mentioned anything about the petitioners. The learned counsel further contended that at the time of enlarging the petitioners on bail it has been already held that the petitioners were not incharge of the construction of the particular institution which is come under the trust in which the first petitioner is the Chairman and the second petitioner is one of the Directors. At the time of granting bail to the petitioners reliance was placed on the judgment reported in 1969 Law Weekly (Crl.) 158 in which this Court had occasioned a defective construction of the building causing death of several members and in that case it has been held that for this purpose, the owner of the building cannot be held liable for the negligence on the person who actually constructed the building and on that basis the said case has ended in acquittal. Further he contended that there is no vicarious liability against the Directors since it is the Trust property. Further, on the medical ground also the petitioners cannot go in to the ordeal of trial. Further, as directed by this Court, a sum of Rs.26,00,000/- has been deposited by the petitioners before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur towards ex gratia amount at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- each in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased persons and Rs.50,000/-each to the injured victims. Under such circumstances, the FIR against the petitioners has to be quashed.

4. The learned Additional Public Pros