IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 18 OF DECEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16431 of 2025 B.C NIRANJAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Ms. Pooja Agrawal - Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shanti Tiwari - P.L. for the respondent/State.

ORDER The present petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this High Court, seeking quashment of the charge-sheet dated 14.11.2024 filed in connection with FIR bearing Crime No. 308/2023, registered at Railway Police Station, Jabalpur, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2 . Facts of the case in short are that the applicant is serving as Senior Section Engineer (SSE) in the West Central Railway with an unblemished service record. West Central Railway entered into a contract dated 09.01.2023 with Kamy India, Nagpur for execution of OHE electrification work. The contractor appointed Deepak Sharma as Supervisor, under whose direct supervision the deceased, Ali Murtaza, a contractual labourer, was working. On 12.06.2023, the deceased suffered electrocution resulting in burn injuries and was admitted to hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries on 18.06.2023. An FIR bearing Crime No. 308/2023 under Section 304-A IPC was registered on 17.08.2023 at Railway Police Station, Jabalpur, alleging negligence on the part of the Applicant. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet dated 14.11.2024, also implicating Deepak Sharma (Supervisor) and Ajmail @ Nihar (Gang Leader) on the ground of negligence. The Applicant had no direct role in supervising the work of the deceased, and as per the terms of the contract, the responsibility for safety of the workers rested entirely upon the contractor.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that registration of FIR No.308/2023 against the applicant is a clear abuse of process of law. The deceased was a contractual labourer employed by an independent contractor and was working under the supervision of the contractor’s Supervisor. There was no employer–employee relationship between the deceased and the applicant or the Government Department. The applicant had no role in execution of the work or in ensuring workplace safety. The responsibility for safety measures rested solely with the contractor and Supervisor. The Police Inquiry Report (Annexure A-4) confirms that the applicant issued no instructions to the deceased, who acted only on the directions of the Supervisor. In law, a government employee cannot be held vicariously liable for acts or omissions of an independent contractor. Settled judicial precedents further hold that liability under Section 304-A IPC cannot be fastened on government officials in the absence of direct and specific negligence, which is completely absent in the present case. The FIR has been lodged after an unexplained delay of more than two months, clearly indicating mala fide intent and harassment of the applicant. It is further submitted that the applicant, being a public servant, was discharging official duties at the relevant time and no mandatory sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. has been obtained. The absence of such sanction renders the FIR, charge-sheet dated 14.11.2024, and all consequential proceedings void ab initio. Continuation of the proceedings would cause irreparable prejudice to the applicant’s reputation and livelihood. Hence, this is a fit case for exercise of inherent powers of this Hon’ble Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR No. 308/2023, the charge-sheet dated

14.11.2024, and RCT No. 3445 of 2024.

4 . Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. As per the prosecution, the deceased died due to the negligence of the applicant. The applicant’s name is mentioned in the FIR, and upon perusal of the case diary