SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 11124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 24.06.2022 PRONOUNCED ON : 01.07.2022 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.1809 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No. 1139 of 2020 M/s.Express Infrastructure Private Limited Represented by Assistant Manager (Water Treatments)

K.Ashok Kumar, S/o. Kaveriyappan, Express Avenue, No.49/50, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai - 600 014. ...Petitioner -Vs-

1. State by:

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Triplicane Range and District, Triplicane, Chennai - 600 002.

2. Inspector of Police, D-2, Anna Salai Police Station, Chennai - 600 002.

3. M.Ranjithkumar ... Respondents Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Crime No.515 of 2019 dated 12.11.2019 on the file of the first respondent, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, D-2, Anna Salai Police Station, Chennai - 600

002 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Manishankar Senior Counsel for Mr.P.R.Dhilip Kumar For Respondents For R1 & R2 : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

For R3 : No appearance

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.515 of 2019 dated 12.11.2019, on the file of the first respondent, viz., the Assistant Commissioner of Police, D-2, Anna Salai Police Station, Chennai - 600 002 as against the petitioner.

2. Based on the complaint lodged by the third respondent, the second respondent police registered the FIR in Crime No.515 of 2019 for the offence under Section 9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 and Section 304 (i) of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The FIR has been registered as against one K.Dhandapani, Proprietor of Express Avenue, Manager of Express Avenue and others.

3. The third respondent lodged a complaint alleging that on

11.11.2019, at about 10.30 P.M, the first accused/private contractor had brought four individuals including the de-facto complainant for the purpose of Sewage Treatment Plant (herein after called as STP) tank cleaning in Basement-3 of the Express Avenue Mall, Royapettah, Chennai. The first accused had deployed four individuals to clean the STP tank with safety devices and thereafter they were directed to remove the safety devices and to clean the STP tank. After cleaning the second STP tank, when they were about to clean the third STP tank, the de-facto complainant have got fainted and immediately reported the difficulty in continuing the work. However, he was compelled to clean the STP tank by the first accused and immediately the poisonous gas attacked him, therefore he raised his voice. After hearing the voice of the defacto complainant, his brother immediately went into the STP tank and he fainted due to poisonous gas. Due to which, he died. Thereafter, the de- facto complainant was taken to hospital and had treatment. Hence the complaint.

4. Mr.C.Manishankar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as one of the accused and he is the Assistant Manager of M/s.Express Infrastructure Private Limited. Though, the Mall was called as Express Avenue, the Company's name is M/s.Express Infrastructure Private Limited. He further submitted that on 11.11.2019, the contractor one K.Dhandapani, who is arrayed as first accused, had deployed four individuals with safety gears and they were asked to commence the work of cleaning of STP tank, which is situated in Basement-3 in the Express Avenue Mall. 4.1. The petitioner entered into a contract dated 01.11.2019 with M/S.ENR Enterprises represented by its CEO, K.Dhandapani (contractor/1st accused) through Work Order No.EH/WO0290/19-20 for the purpose of cleaning the STP tank at Basement-3 of the Express Avenue Mall, Chennai. Subsequent to the said contract, on 11.11.2019 at about 10.30 P.M, the 1st accused had brought four individuals, including the third respondent to clean the aforesaid tanks. Therefore, the petitioner is no way responsible for the untoward incident happened in the process of cleaning of STP tank.

4.2. He further pointed out that as per the contract, the contractor is liable for the damages done and he shall be responsible for all the injury to persons, animals or things and for all structural and decorative damage to property, which may arise due to or out of the act of omission or commission of the Contractor or its representatives, including but not limited injury arising due to or out of negligence, accident, or any other other cause whatever in any way connected with carrying out with the work order. Further, according to the contract the contractor shall confirm to the provisions or any Statutes, Rules, Regulations as may be applicable to the works and abide by them.

4.3. Accordingly, the first accused was engaged with the petitioner to do the works in the Express Avenue. Therefore, the petitioner is not at all liable to be punished for any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner had

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top