NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPCR No.106 of 2021 Order Reserved on : 06.12.2021 Order Delivered on : 02.02.2022

1. Yashwant Saraf, S/o Kamal Kumar Saraf, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Kranti Nagar, Near Jain Mandir, Tarbahar, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

2. Siddharth Gupta, S/o Omprakash Gupta, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gandhi Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Dhanbad, Police Station Dhansar, Jharkhand, At Present R/o Hanuman Mandir Ring Road No.2, Ayodhya Nagar, Ranjit House, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioners Versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chakarbhata, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Petitioners Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, GA Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey

C A V Judgment

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of FIR bearing No.276/2020 registered by the Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur for an alleged offence under Section 304A of IPC, final report bearing No.257/2020 and the charge sheet (Annexure-P/2).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is the owner of the Hotel Shiva Inn and the petitioner No.2 is the manager of the said hotel. The deceased was the supervisor in the said hotel. The incident took place on 01.11.2020 at 10:30 am when the deceased was doing his daily routine work of cleaning floor in the hotel, he received electric shock, due to which he received serious injuries. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, but he died on the way to hospital. The Police Chowki, CIMS registered inquest report under Section 174 of CrPC and transferred the same to the Police Station Chakarbhatha, where the inquest report was registered bearing No.58/2020 and thereafter by further investigation, the Police Station Chakarbhatha found the negligence on the part of the petitioners because they did not provide any safety kit and also not followed safety protocol, therefore, Crime No.276/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 304A of IPC was registered against the petitioners. The statement of witnesses was recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and the petitioners were arrested.

3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are innocent and the instant crime has only been registered to harass the petitioners by misusing the process of law and if the prosecution story is taken as it is, even then no case is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners always follow the safety measures and government's norms and guidelines for the safety of their employees. He further submits that no preliminary enquiry was carried out by the Police Authorities before registration of FIR against the petitioners. The preliminary enquiry is necessary and FIR can be lodged only after conducting preliminary investigation, but the same has not been done. The contents of FIR do not prima facie constitute cognizable offence against the accused persons. The registration of FIR is a sheer abuse of process of law. Therefore, FIR bearing No.276/2020 registered by the Police Station Chakarbhatha, District Bilaspur for an alleged offence under Section 304A of IPC, the final report thereof bearing No.257/2020 and the charge sheet filed against the petitioners may kindly be quashed. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Rajan vs Joseph ¹ , Rafeek Vs State of Kerala ², Sushil Ansal vs State through Central Bureau of Investigation ³

4. Mr. Ghanshyam, learned State counsel, opposes the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the FIR has been registered against the petitioners only after receiving a complaint and after due investigation, a prima facie case was found against the petitioners, thereafter they were arrested and the charge sheet was filed. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused th