Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14006
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRMP No. 1468 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sudhir Bajpai
For the Respondents: Saumya Rai
Criminal proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC when the trial has already commenced and the issues are factual in nature, as the court cannot evaluate the reliability of allegations without evidence.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashment of an FIR registered under Sections 287 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from a bunker collapse during mining activities which resulted in the death of an employee. The court noted that charges had already been framed and the trial had commenced with the examination of a prosecution witness. The court addressed whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed at this stage. It held that since the allegations of causing death by negligence are factual in nature, they must be determined through the adducing of evidence. The court reasoned that prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances and that at the quashing stage, the court should not judge the probability, reliability, or genuineness of the allegations. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the mining accident and subsequent criminal charges for negligence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. inappropriateness of quashing when trial has commenced and issues are factual. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. standard for quashing criminal proceedings to avoid stifling legitimate prosecution. (Para 5) |
| 4. dismissal of petition due to advanced stage of trial. (Para 6) |
Order on Board
Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ .
1. The present petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of FIR No.0692/2022, Registered at Police Station Balco (outpost Rajgamar) as also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner-company for the offence under Sections 287 and 304-A IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, on 05.07.2022 during mines activities of petitioner company on account of bunker collapse one of its employee namely Radhe Shyam died. Online information about the accident was sent to Chief Inspector of Mines/Director General Mines and Safety. Statement of officials were recorded and after completing enquiry, show cause notices were issued to erring officials and departmental action was also taken. Information was also given to Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Regional Office, Bilaspur. Thereafter, merg was registered on the basis of complaint made by the son of deceased leading to filing of FIR on 15.11.2022 for the offence under Sections 287 and 304-A IPC against the petitioner-company. Hence this petition for quashing FIR.
3. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition.
4. On a specific query being made, it is fairly submitted by the counsel for the parties that charges have been framed before the trial court and one prosecution witness have also been examined in trial. It transpires from the order sheet that no interim order has been passed in favour of the petitioner in the present matter. Since the allegation of causing death by negligence is levelled by the prosecution with respect to the incident occurred in SECL Rajgamar Mines for which FIR has been lodged and trial is commenced and one prosecution witness has also been examined, we are not inclined to quash the FIR at this advanced stage as the issue involved in the present case is factual in the nature which can be determined after adducing evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
5. So far as the law under Section 482 CrPC is concerned, it is by now a well settled proposition, that while considering the case for quashing of the Criminal proceedings the court should not “kill a stillborn child” and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there a compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegation have some substance. When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is whether the uncontroverted allegation as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither can the Court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein.
6. In view of above, since trial is in progress, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter at this belated stage. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
