Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 314 (MP)

Bhuvanesh Ranjan Shukla v. State of M. P.

2011-03-08

INDRANI DATTA

body2011
ORDER 1. Invoking the inherent powers of this Court enshrined under section 482 of CrPC petitioner has preferred this petition for setting aside order dated 30.11.2009, whereby on filing of charge-sheet by police Station, Bahodapur, Distt. Gwalior, under the provisions of section 190 (1) (b) of CrPC., learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under section 304-A of IPC. 2. Facts in nutshell giving rise to this petition are that on the written information of Ramkumar concerning death of Meghnath due to electric current, Merg No 55/2008 is registered at police Station, Bahodapur, and after merg enquiry, Crime No. 99/09 is registered against petitioner and co-accused for the offence punishable under section 304A of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before JMFC, Gwalior, and learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner giving rise to this petition. 3.It is contended by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is a job trainee in MPEB Gwalior. His office is situtated at Shinde Ki Chhavni. His job is to sit in the office and deal with the complaints of fault of electricity. On such complaints, he used to send on the spot linemen and helpers to cure the fault. It is further submitted that some precautions are to be taken at the time of curing electricity fault and certain safety rules have been prescribed by MPEB for that purpose. These precautions are to be taken while working on the lines, sub-stations, switch gears, etc. It is also specifically directed that what appliances are to be used by employees while working on polls and overhead lines as per Anneuxre P/2. This safety appliances book is provided to every lineman and their assistants who use to work in the field. It is strictly directed that all requirements provided by MPEB for safety of the staff are to be used by them. It is further contended by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that on 6.12.2008 when petitioner was in his office, he received one complaint that transformer at railway station road, Ghosipura is burnt. Two linemen and two helpers were already working in some other area which is nearby Ghosipura, so petitioner instructed co-accused Munna Khan lineman to cure the fault at Ghosipura also. He also directed that they should cure the fault after using safety appliances and following safety instructions issued by MPEB. Two linemen and two helpers were already working in some other area which is nearby Ghosipura, so petitioner instructed co-accused Munna Khan lineman to cure the fault at Ghosipura also. He also directed that they should cure the fault after using safety appliances and following safety instructions issued by MPEB. It is further contended that co-accused Munna Khan and his team have not complied with safety instructions issued by MPEB and have not used safety equipments while curing the fault of transformer situated at Ghosipura, as a result, Meghnath died due to electric current. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in these circumstances, it cannot be said that petitioner is responsible for the death of the deceased or his death is caused by rash and negligent act of the petitioner. Hence, proceedings of criminal case No. 15564/2009 so far as petitioner is concerned are to be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that no ground is made out for quashing the proceedings of criminal case No. 15564/2009 pending before JMFC, Gwalior. 5. Heard rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Section 304A of IPC reads in two parts; first part relates to causing of death of any person by any rash act of the accused and second part comes in operation when death is caused due to negligent act. Hence, offence under section 304A of IPC is committed either by committing a rash act or a negligent act. On perusal of the material collected during investigation, it reveals that as a general routine, petitioner has asked co-accused Munna Khan, lineman, to reach on the spot to cure the fault with his team, but instead of curing the fault himself, he asked the deceased to cure the fault. In these circumstances, it appears that death of the deceased is not a direct result of rash and negligent act of petitioner as there is no direct nexus between the death of the deceased and alleged act of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is covered under category (1) mentioned by Hon 'ble apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. The case of the petitioner is covered under category (1) mentioned by Hon 'ble apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, which reads as follows : "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused." 7. In these facts and circumstances, this case appears to be a fit case for invoking inherent powers enshrined under section 482 of CrPC. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and proceedings of criminal case No. 15564/2009 so far as petitioner is concerned are quashed. Learned trial Court may proceed against other accused in accordance with the law.