Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1653 (PNJ)

Sachin v. State of Haryana

2013-12-11

SABINA

body2013
JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.: - Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No. 172 dated 11.4.2010 under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) registered at Police Station City Bhiwani District Bhiwani and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no offence under Section 304-A IPC could be said to have been committed by the petitioner. In fact, all the residents of the locality had planned to get installed one hand pump for their use. Members of the locality had arranged joint funds for installation of the hand pump. Balvir was engaged to instal the hand pump in front of the house of the petitioner. While installing the hand pump, Balvir got electrocuted and as a result of this, he died. However, petitioner could not be held liable for death of Balvir. 3. Learned State counsel as well as counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, have opposed the petition and have submitted that the hand pump was being installed in front of the house of the petitioner. Balvir got electrocuted because the clip of the hand pump touched the live wire, which was passing over the house of the petitioner and as a result, he died. 4. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, 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. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 5. In the present case, admittedly, the hand pump was being installed for the residents of the locality and Balvir was engaged to instal the hand pump. The hand pump was to be installed in front of the house of the petitioner. In the present case, admittedly, the hand pump was being installed for the residents of the locality and Balvir was engaged to instal the hand pump. The hand pump was to be installed in front of the house of the petitioner. Unfortunately, while installing the hand pump, the clip of the hand pump touched with the live wire, which was passing over the house of the petitioner. Due to this reason Balvir got electrocuted and died at the spot. Petitioner, however, cannot be held liable qua commission of offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC merely because the hand pump was being installed in front of his house. The electric wires passing through the houses had been admittedly fixed by the electricity department. 6. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law as the hand pump was being installed for the benefit of the residents of the locality. Merely because the hand pump was being installed in front of the house of the petitioner is no ground to hold that the deceased had died due to his negligence. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR No. 172 dated 11.4.2010 under Section 304-A IPC registered at Police Station City Bhiwani District Bhiwani and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed.