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

2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 79106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


CRR-715-2023















JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON OPERATIVE PART PRONOUNCED OR FULL UPLOADED ON
15.05.2026 29.05.2026 FULL PRONOUNCED 29.05.2026

Krishan Kaushik ......Petitioner


Vs.


State of Haryana ......Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA


Present: Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Sr. Advocate with


Mr. Sukhdeep Singh, Advocate and


Mr. Karanveer Singh, Advocate


for the petitioner.


Mr. Shiva Khurmi, DAG, Haryana.

***

FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
212 2021 Furrukh Nagar 288, 304(II) & 34 IPC

1. Aggrieved by the framing of charges, the accused has come up before this court by filing the present Criminal Revision Petition.

2. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and State and gone through the pleadings and its analysis would lead to the following outcome.

3. It shall be appropriate to refer to the FIR, which has been annexed as Annexure P1.

4. On July 19, 2021 an information was made to SHO Police Station Furrukh Nagar by one Vijay Kumar and he informed the police that he was working for last four years at DELEX company in an Executive warehouse of the said company, which is situated in village Khwaspur in Gurugram. The online shopping goods were delivered to different places from this warehouse and this warehouse compound had a three storey building wherein 20-22 employees used to stay, however the condition of the building was in a dilapidated state. The Manager Krishnan Kumar Kaushik (petitioner herein) and owner Ravinder Katiyar were informed about the poor condition of the building and were cautioned that it may fall. The requests were also made to get the employees shifted to another building. The complainant alleged that Ravinder and Kishan Kumar Kaushik (petitioner) had assured them not to get panic and nothing was going to happen with the building. Repeated complaints about poor condition of the building were made by employees to get it repaired, however jacks were placed there. The complainant informed that on July 18, 2021 at 7 o’clock, when he and his friend were sleeping, then all of a sudden they heard loud crashing sound. On coming out they noticed that the building had collapsed and due to which 4-5 persons got trapped under the debris. Later on they noticed one Robin had died and rescue of others was still on. The informant complained that incident had happened because various complaints made by them about the condition of the building to Krishnan Kumar and owner Ravinder Katiyar but they do not pay any heed to the complaints. Based on this information, the police registered the FIR captioned above.

5. Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, learned Senior Advocate has referred to Annexure P-4 which is a report of a committee constituted by SDM, Pataudi, for conducting inquiry regarding collapse of the warehouse. The committee took samples of materials along with the members and the samples were sealed and sent for quality control tests. On receipt of the test results, the report was annexed as Annexure A. However, Annexure A is not attached with the present petition. Further the test results of steel received from Micro Engineering Testing Laboratory, Sonipat, was also annexed as Annexure B, which is also not attached with the present petition. It is mentioned that the test results of materials show that the bricks used in the construction were 2nd class quality; the cement motor ratio is 1:7.05 and cement concrete (used in RCC work) ratio was 1:2.88:L6.45, which was not satisfactory and below the prescribed specifications. The committee also stated that on visual inspection and based on test results of material it seemed that building was not constructed with proper structural design and specifications and further the material used in the building was not up to the mark and there were chances of poor workmanship in construction work. The petitioner has attached a copy of lease agreement as Annexure P-2 and as per this agreement Ravinder Kataria was the owner of the building and was as a lessor and the agreement was between Ravinder Kataria and M/s DelEx Cargo India Private Limited. The agreement was entered into between these parties through authorized officers. The photocopy of the lease agreement does not contain signatures on behalf of M/s DelEx Cargo India Private Limited but it has signatures on the above name Ravinder Kataria.

6. The Petitioner’s counsel has also referred to an article in Annexure P-5, as per which l

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top