Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 26377
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
G. Jayachandran, J
Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Erode South Police Station, Erode – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.10930 of 2019 | Crl.M.P.No.5598 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dr. S.S. Swaminathan
For the Respondents: N.S. Suganthan
A building owner cannot be held vicariously liable for criminal negligence under Sections 304(A) and 288 of the IPC if supervisory duties were delegated to others and the owner had no direct control or proximate role in the accident.
Headnote:The petitioner, the owner of a building, sought quashment of a complaint for offences under Section 304(A) and Section 288 of the Indian Penal Code following the death of a worker due to a wall collapse. It was alleged that no proper precaution and safety measures were taken to prevent the accident. The court found that supervisory responsibilities had been entrusted to a building contractor and a company supervisor, and the owner was neither present nor in direct control during the incident. The core issues were whether the owner of the building could be held vicariously liable for criminal negligence when supervision was delegated. The court reasoned that for Section 304(A) IPC, the act must be the "causa causans" and the "proximate and efficient cause of the death without intervention of other's negligence," and for Section 288 IPC, the accused must have "knowingly or negligently omitted to take necessary steps to avoid probable danger." Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The complaint in C.C.No.197 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Erode is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the construction accident and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 9) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding vicarious liability of the premises owner. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. requirement of proximate cause and direct negligence for section 304(a) ipc. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. application of section 288 ipc regarding negligent omission of safety measures. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. quashing of criminal proceedings due to lack of required ingredients. (Para 14) |
O R D E R
This Criminal Original Petition is filed by the petitioner/3rd accused to quash the Criminal complaint in C.C.No.197 of 2018, on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Erode.
2. The facts leading to filing of charge sheet against the petitioner for offences under Section 304(A) and 288 of I.P.C arose due to a wall collapsed and fell on a worker, on 11.09.2018, at about 23.30 hours at P&C Tower, No.140, Perundurai Road, Erode. The said accident occurred when the labourers were working in one of the rooms of the building, removing bricks the wall collapsed and caused death of Pankaj Palai.
3. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.556/2018 dated 12.09.2018 against Building Supervisor A1 (Prakash), Company Supervisor A2 (Charles Victor) and owner of the building A3(Rajesh).
4. The petitioner, who is the owner of the building seeks quashment of the complaint alleging that having entrusted the supervisory responsibility to the Company Supervisor and the Building Supervisor, the petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable for the incident which occurred in his absence. Due to sudden collapse of the wall, while cleaning the floor it has fallen on the deceased Pankaj Palai. In the Final Report, it is stated that no proper precaution and safety measures were taken by the accused persons to prevent the accident. However, while the supervisory responsibility been entrusted to the contractor or any other individual, for the purpose of supervision, only such person can be held criminally liable. Even according to the complaint, omission to provide safety gears is the breach of responsibility of Building Supervisor Prakash (A1) and the Company Supervisor Charles Victor (A2). While so, the owner cannot be expected to be omni present every where. He has been prosecuted for the accident occurred in his building without the knowledge or contribution. The ingredient to attract offences under Sections 304(A) and 288 of I.P.C., not made out from the complaint and documents relied. The petitioner/Rajesh, the owner of the building is no way connected with the negligence alleged in the complaint. Hence, complaint to be quashed.
5. In support of his submission, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i). Sasikumari and another -vs- The State, Inspector of Police, J5 Shastri Nagar Police Station, reported in MANU/TN/7612/2018.
(ii). Dr.Jeppiar and another -vs- State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Inspector of Police and Bija Mahali reported in MANU/TN/2257/2012.
(iii). R.P.P. Selvam -vs- State Rep. Sub Inspector of Police reported in http://indiankanoon.org/doc/185049010.
(iv). Ganesh -vs-. The State by, Inspector of Police, Vadmadurai Police Station reported in MANU/TN/7164/2019.
(v). Gopi and others -vs- The State Represented by, the Inspector of Police, and another reported in MANU/TN/4032/2020.
(vi). Dr.Suresh and another -vs- The State Rep. by its, The Inspector of Police, E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Law and other reported in http://indiankanoon.org/doc/160385678.
6. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent/State submitted that admittedly the accident has occurred in the premises owned by the petitioner herein. Due to negligence, death of a worker [Pankaj Palai] occurred. Investigation indicates that the Company Supervisor as well as Building Supervisor have not provided safety gears to the workers. This has led to death of a worker on whom the neglected wall collapsed. The
