The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the bar of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and the interpretation of the petitioner's liability as a contractor in relation to the incident.

N.S. SHEKHAWAT J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of an FIR No. 143 dated 24.07.2011 under Section 338 of IPC registered at Police Station Sahlawas, District Jhajjar (Annexure P-1) alongwith all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the FIR in the present case was got registered on the basis of the statement made by Manoj son of Jai Kishan. As per the complainant, on 16.07.2011, he was working as an electrician in Tiejun Company, Jharli. At about 03:30/04:00 AM, he went on deputation to Shandong Tiejun Electric Power Engineering Company Limited (herein after referred to as the “Shandog Electric”) for night duty from his company Mafoi Management Consultants Limited and was not able to join on duty till evening. At that time, he went to urinate near the sub station of their company and after urinating, he had raised his hands to relax himself and the electricity wire was so low that his hands touched it and he became unconscious. When he got up later, he called his company’s friend namely Lal Singh and told him about the incident. Later on, Lal Singh and other officials of the company came there and took him to PGI Rohtak and he remained admitted there for 4/5 days. The officials of the company did not allow him to lodge the FIR and later on, his father got him admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi on 20.07.2011 and he informed the police and got his MLC conducted. As per him, had the company got him treated in time and would not have been careless, then both his hands could be saved. With these broad averments, the complainant got the FIR registered under Section 338 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had entered into agreement dated on 01.04.2009 with Shandog Electric. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.2/complainant used to work under the Shandong Electric and the site, where the respondent No.2 was working was also under the active control of Shandong Electric. As per the agreement, the responsibility of the petitioner management were clearly defined. As per clause 2.1, the Shandong Electric was to forward the requirements specified in the form of Annexure 1 to the petitioner company and the petitioner company was to provide qualified candidates resumes pursuant to Annexure 1 issued by the Shandong Electric. Further, the duty of the petitioner management was only to supply the labour to the Shandong Electric and they used to work under the direct and active control of the Shandong Electric. He further contends that the incident in question had taken place, while respondent No.2 was relaxing in the accommodation provided by the Shandong Electric and he accidently touched a live electric wire there. Even from the admitted case of the respondent No.2/complainant, the site, where the accident had occurred, was owned and was under the active control of the Shendong Electric. Thus, no criminal liability can be fastened on the petitioner company. Apart from that, as per the report prepared at the site, even the wire was more than nine feet above the ground and it was not possible to touch the wire. Consequently, there must be some negligence on the part of the respondent No.2/complainant. Apart from that, the FIR in the instant case was registered under Section 338 of IPC, which is punishable with a maximum sentence of two years. Consequently, no Court was in a position to take cognizance of the offence after a period of 03 years from the date of occurrence.

4. Reply has been filed by Superintendent of Police, Jhajjar on behalf of respondent No.1. Even though the respondent No.2 was served, but no formal reply was filed by respondent No.2. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner was a contractor and was liable to be prosecuted for the accident in question. Apart from that, the w