Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 10553
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J
SHRI. UMESH S/O RAVASAHEB JADHAV – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 102694 of 2023
The court held that the petitioner did not engage in negligent conduct as defined under IPC Sections 288 and 338, leading to the quashing of the FIR.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 288 and 338 - Quashing of FIR - Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for alleged negligence in providing safety measures at a worksite - Court found no evidence of negligence or actions endangering life as required under Sections 288 and 338 - The petitioner merely assigned work and did not engage in any act that could be construed as negligent. (Paras 4, 9, 11)
(B) Abuse of Process of Law - The court held that the proceedings against the petitioner constituted an abuse of process as the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences were not satisfied. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of negligence leading to injuries sustained by workers at a poultry farm due to lack of safety measures. The incident occurred on 31.05.2023, and the complaint was filed on 20.08.2023.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations did not meet the legal requirements for the offences charged, leading to the conclusion that the proceedings were an abuse of process.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner’s actions constituted negligence under Sections 288 and 338 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner did not engage in any act that could be deemed negligent or rash, thus the charges were unfounded.
Result: The petition is allowed, and the proceedings are quashed.
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in Crime No.75/2023 of Khadakalat Police station registered for offences punishable under Sections 288 and 338 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against the petitioner and another stating that he and his co-workers were assigned with a work of fabrications at poultry farm by the petitioner and his father situated at Peerwadi, Khadakalat village which is owned by father of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner and his father did not provide them with any safety measures to complete the work, because of which the complainant and another fell from height of 22 feet and sustained injuries.
The incident has taken place on 31.05.2023 and the complaint has been filed on 20.08.2023. The said complaint has been registered in Crime No.75/2023 of Khadakalat P.S. for offences punishable under Sections 288 and 338 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The said FIR is sought to be quashed by accused No.1 in the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that even assuming the entire contents of the complaint, it does not attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. There is no pulling down or repairing of the building of the petitioner to attract offence under Section 288 of IPC. There is no rash or negligent act of the petitioner to endanger human life or personal safety to attract offence under Section 338 of IPC. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case ofAbdul Kalam V/s State (Government of NCT of Delhi) in Crl.Rev.P.No.1021/2002 decided on 03.05.2006. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate contend that the petitioners even though engaged the services of the respondent No.2 in fabrication work, did not provide any safety measures in the place of work and due to that the respondent No.2 and another fell from height and sustained injury and it attracts the offences alleged against them. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the FIR and complaint.
7. Section 288 of Indian Penal Code reads as under:
“288. Negligent conduct with respect to pulling down or repairing buildings.-- Whoever, in pulling down or repairing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with that building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or of any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”
8. It has to be seen whether any offence is made out under Section 288 in the context of the allegations against the petitioner. In the present case, if the complaint of respondent No.2 is taken to be correct, there is no mention of any fall of any building or any part thereof. What has happened is that the respondent No.2 and another who were doing fabricating work, fell from height and sustained injury. Section 288 of IPC concerns itself with a situation where a person, in pulling down or repairing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with the building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or any part thereof.
9. The respondent No.2 and another who have sustained injury cannot come within the sweep of this Section inasmuch as the petitioner, who has assigned the job of fabricating work to the respondent No.2. Therefore, it cannot be construed that petitioner knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order as is required under Section 288
