Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Conversely, some cases have seen charges under Sec 336 IPC quashed when the act did not amount to rash/negligent endangerment or when the act was not directly attributable to the contractor’s rashness, as seen in ["CHERIAN @ SCARIA vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:["SREEJA vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]["Suresh Rai VS State of Nagaland - Gauhati"]["CHERIAN @ SCARIA vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]
In the construction industry, safety is paramount. But what happens when an incident raises questions about negligence? A common query arises: whether a criminal case registered against the building contractor under Sec 336 of IPC is maintainable. Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses acts that endanger human life or personal safety. This blog delves into the legal framework, judicial interpretations, and specific implications for building contractors, drawing from key case laws.
We'll examine the provision, court rulings on maintainability, quashing possibilities, and contractor responsibilities. Note: This is general information based on precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your situation.
Section 336 IPC punishes rash or negligent acts that endanger life or personal safety of others. It states: Act endangering life or personal safety of others. This is a non-compoundable offense, meaning parties typically cannot settle privately; the State prosecutes. Punishment can include up to three months imprisonment, fine, or both. Manoj Kumar Joshi VS State of Rajasthan - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1493
The key is proving the act was rash or negligent and posed real danger. Courts scrutinize evidence closely, often requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. Jagbir Singh VS U. t. Chandigarh - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 708
Courts generally uphold Section 336 cases as maintainable but allow quashing under Section 482 CrPC in the interest of justice, especially with compromise or no serious harm. In one case, despite non-compoundability, proceedings were quashed due to genuine compromise and the complainant turning hostile. The court noted: Proceedings under Section 336 can be quashed in the interest of justice despite non-compoundability.Manoj Kumar Joshi VS State of Rajasthan - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1493
Similarly, another ruling quashed an FIR under Section 336 based on compromise, relying on Supreme Court precedents like Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab. The court verified the settlement and nature of the offense: The offence under Section 336 of the IPC is not compoundable. However, considering the nature of the offence and the parties' resolution... the FIR was quashed.Vikas Singh Parmar VS State Of M. P. And Another - 2020 Supreme(MP) 116
For conviction, prosecution must establish danger beyond doubt. In a key case, conviction was upheld, but the accused was released on probation due to peculiar facts: Conviction proved beyond reasonable doubt; court can treat revision as appeal.Jagbir Singh VS U. t. Chandigarh - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 708
Police witness evidence was deemed reliable in another matter involving Sections 332 and 336, leading to upheld conviction with sentence modification. Danabal alias Palpudi Danapal VS state by the inspector of police (law and order), madras - 2004 Supreme(Mad) 749
FIRs can be quashed if no negligence is evident, like in natural calamities. One High Court quashed proceedings under Sections 336, 337, and 427: No evidence of rash or negligent act... Damage resulting from natural calamity, not actionable.Sudarshana Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 5953
Building contractors face heightened scrutiny due to construction risks. Unauthorized builds or safety lapses can trigger Section 336 if they endanger lives.
Contractors must obtain sanctions and follow safety norms. Violations may lead to criminal liability. In a case on building sanctions: Orders without legal basis are void, stressing procedural compliance to avoid dangers. C. L. BATRA VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - 1997 0 Supreme(Del) 681
Under Delhi Municipal Act, 1957, improper constructions risk lives: Unauthorized construction can endanger life.M-Block Welfare Society Greater Kailash-I vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi - Delhi (2004)
A tragic school wall collapse led to charges under Sections 304A and 336 against the headmaster, highlighting institutional liability akin to contractors. A. Pavadai VS Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Kallakurichi - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 274
Cases against contractors are typically maintainable if negligence is alleged, but quashable if unfounded. For instance, FIRs for rash acts in construction must show direct causation. Courts balance duty of care: Negligence or reckless acts can be prosecuted under Section 336 if they endanger life.
In preventive detention challenges, acts like stone-pelting were deemed public order issues beyond mere IPC offenses, but for contractors, focus remains on site-specific negligence. RASHIDA BEGUM VS STATE OF M. P. - 2000 Supreme(MP) 128
| Case ID | Key Issue | Court's Holding | Relevance to Contractors ||---------|-----------|-----------------|--------------------------|| Manoj Kumar Joshi VS State of Rajasthan - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1493 | Quashing due to compromise | Quashable despite non-compoundable | Judicial discretion for minor incidents || Jagbir Singh VS U. t. Chandigarh - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 708 | Conviction evidence | Upheld with probation | Prosecution needs strong proof || C. L. BATRA VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - 1997 0 Supreme(Del) 681 | Building sanctions | Void without legal basis | Prevents unsafe constructions || M-Block Welfare Society Greater Kailash-I vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi - Delhi (2004) | Municipal regulations | Unauthorized builds endanger lives | Contractor compliance crucial || Vikas Singh Parmar VS State Of M. P. And Another - 2020 Supreme(MP) 116 | Compromise quashing | FIR quashed post-settlement | Possible even for Sec 336 || Sudarshana Devi vs State of Himachal Pradesh - 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 5953 | Natural causes | FIR quashed, no negligence | Defenses for non-human factors |
During investigation, applications like Sec 205 CrPC for exemption are often not maintainable. An application under Sec. 205 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable when the case is under investigation.Farhan vs STATE OF KERALA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 61317Farhan vs STATE OF KERALA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22415Farhan vs STATE OF KERALA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 183
Post-final report, new applications may be filed. This applies to contractors facing charges.
In appeals, convictions under related sections like 336 with 323 or 506 may be modified based on facts. CHERIAN @ SCARIA vs STATE OF KERALA - 2016 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46486
A criminal case under Section 336 IPC against a building contractor is generally maintainable if rash or negligent acts endangering life are proven. However, courts exercise discretion to quash in cases of compromise, no harm, or natural causes. Contractors must prioritize safety and compliance to mitigate risks.
Key Takeaways:- Prosecution needs solid evidence; weak cases can be quashed. Jagbir Singh VS U. t. Chandigarh - 2022 0 Supreme(P&H) 708- Non-compoundable doesn't mean unquashable. Manoj Kumar Joshi VS State of Rajasthan - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 1493- Focus on procedural adherence in construction. C. L. BATRA VS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - 1997 0 Supreme(Del) 681
Stay informed, prioritize safety, and seek professional advice for specific matters. Construction law evolves—vigilance is key.
References: Listed case IDs above. This analysis synthesizes judicial trends for educational purposes.
#Section336IPC #BuildingContractorLaw #IPCCriminalCases
The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Secs. 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w Sec.149 IPC. He was granted pre-arrest bail by the lower court as per Annexure-B order. ... An application under Sec. 205 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable when the case is under investigation. Now, the petitioner submitted that the final report is filed before the court concerned. ... PP THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME....
By filing this application, the petitioners are praying for setting aside and quashing of GR Case No. 47/2023, registered under Section 279/336/337 IPC read with sec. 184 MV Act, arising out of Khuzama PS Case No. 04/2023 under Section 279/336/337 IPC read with sec. 184 MV Act pending before the learned ... Accordingly, the learned JMFC took cognizance of the case; registered the case#HL....
The above case is registered alleging offences punishable under Sec.336 IPC and under Sec. 199A (1), 199A(2), 5 r/w 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. ... The remaining offence is under Section 336 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows: “336. ... As there is no material to show that the person who drove the motor cycle is a juvenile and that he is not having a driving license, the offence under Section 336#HL_END....
Against that, they preferred the above Criminal Appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam, where the learned Judge set aside the conviction under Sec.336, 323 and 506(i) and confirmed the conviction under Secs.452 and 427 read with Sec.34 IPC. ... The trial court convicted the accused under Secs.452, 336, 323, 506(1) and 427 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them thereunder. ... No.375 of 1997 of the Judicial First C....
O R D E R The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No. 336 ... The petitioner filed an application under Sec. 205 Cr.P.C. for exemption before the Magistrate Court. That was dismissed as per Annexure-C order. The petitioner also approached the Sessions Court with the same prayer and that was also dismissed as per Annexure-D order.
O R D E R The petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No. 336 ... The petitioner filed an application under Sec. 205 Cr.P.C. for exemption before the Magistrate Court. That was dismissed as per Annexure-C order. The petitioner also approached the Sessions Court with the same prayer and that was also dismissed as per Annexure-D order.
& 120-B I.P.C. and Sec.41 & 42 of the Forest Act. ... in a case arising out of FIR No.248 of 2014 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar for offence u/Sec.279, 336, 379 Bhiwadi, District Alwar for offence u/Sec.279, 336, 379 & 120-B S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.4761/2015.
Under Sec.506(ii), I.P.C. ... Criminal Intimidation. Found not guilty. Acquitted. ... 3. ... Found not guilty but found guilty under Sec.324, I.P.C. For the conviction under Sec.324, I.P.C. - Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. ... 3. Under Sec.336, I.P.C. ... Act - endangering life or personal safety of others by rash and negligent act. ... On the basis of Ex.P.1 - Complaint, P.W.5 registered#HL_EN....
much less under Sections 336 , 337 & 427 IPC is made out against the petitioner. ... By way of instant petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing of FIR No.167 of 2020, dated 03.06.2020, under Sections 336 , 337 & 427 IPC, registered at Police Station Bhunter, District Kullu ... and 427 IPC, which is otherwise not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ... Consequently, in view of detaile....
Police Kotwali, Khandwa, registered Crime No. 251/98 for offences under Sections 336, 426 r/w Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code. A challan regarding the said offences was filed in the Competent Court. ... Police Moghat Road, Khandwa registered Crime No. 156/99, for offences u/ss. 147, 336, 337 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. ... Abid is a tailor by profession and is not a habitual criminal. He has been involved in false cases. A petty criminal#HL_....
2. As per prosecution story, the complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a FIR against the applicant on the ground that on 25/11/2019, his mother was engaged in some customary function at the sand mining place for which lease was granted to his mother, the present applicant fired a gunshot in the air. The police registered a case against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 336 of the IPC.
Complainant lodged a report at Police Station Mehagaon. Complainant medically examined, criminal case was registered under sections 147, 148 and 336, 307/149 of IPC before the JMFC Mehagaon.
(iii) In V.Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2009 (I) CTC 434, father of one Sathish @ Sathishkumar, aged 10 years and student of a Panchayat Union Elementary School in Standard 5, filed a Writ of Mandamus, directing the State Government to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, for the death of his son, due to the fall of a compound wall of the school. A criminal case was registered against the Headmaster of the School, for the offences under Sections 304-A and 336 IPC.
Therefore, the criminal case which has been registered under Section 204 of I.P.C. is not maintainable. 5. But, as per the prosecution case, the petitioner herein is alleged to have picked the depositions from the defacto complainant / Personal Assistant regarding one of the evidence of the case and damaged the same and therefore this would not satisfy any of the mandatory requirements of this Section in 204 of I.P.C. The trial Court had committed an error by not considering that as far as Section 353 of IPC is concerned, the accused should act against the public servant by....
These cases it is stated at bar still pending adjudication. Criminal Case No. 274/06 under Section 336, IPC was registered, against the petitioner. The incident resulted in lodging of the cases Criminal Case No. 273/2006 was registered against Ramshu Yadav @ Ramesh Yadav under Crime No. 273/2006 for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 294, 553 and 332, IPC.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
