Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 16 (RAJ)

Rukmani Birla Hospital v. State Of Rajasthan

2020-01-02

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2020
ORDER : 1. The petitioner by way of this petition, has assailed the FIR No.682/2019 lodged at Police Station, Shipra Path, Jaipur dated 27.7.2019 and submits that the wall, that had collapsed on account of which, one person died and several other persons were injured who were living in the house adjacent to the wall, was not in their possession and therefore the respondents would not lie. It is submitted that upon the notice given to them under Section 91 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer, they have already submitted a representation on 8.8.2019 alongwith the documents. However, the Investigating Officer is making further investigation and calling the petitioner which is causing harassment. 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was served on the Director of the hospital on 27.7.2019 for providing documents which were mentioned therein. All the documents which were demanded have not been provided to the Investigating Officer. Resultantly, the investigation is still undergoing and merely because the investigation is going on the FIR ought not to be quashed. 3. I have considered the submissions. 4. For quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C., there are seven guidelines, which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Others Versus Ch. Bhajan Lal & Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 which reads as under:- “108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised 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 channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. 1. 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. 2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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 not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 a 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 a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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.” 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, this court finds that allegations are that the wall of the hospital was in dilapidated condition and has not been maintained properly. It was constructed in a manner which resulted in the incident having occurred wherein one person died while several others were grievously injured. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles, this court finds that allegations are that the wall of the hospital was in dilapidated condition and has not been maintained properly. It was constructed in a manner which resulted in the incident having occurred wherein one person died while several others were grievously injured. The Investigating Officer has raised queries vide his notice under Section 91 as to whether the wall was constructed by the petitioner and the details relating to the land allotted to the hospital and any order passed in relation to the land. The details asked have been answered to certain extent only by the petitioner vide its representation dated 8.8.2019 while some of the details have not been given. In these circumstances, the Investigating Officer has demanded additional details as stated by the learned counsel orally. 6. This court is satisfied that investigation is underway and from the perusal of the contents of the FIR, apparently one person died and other several persons were seriously injured on account of the dilapidated condition of the wall of the Hospital which is stated to be adjacent to the house of the deceased and injured. Contentions raised before this court are matters of investigation as to whether the management was in possession or whether someone else is responsible. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this court would not go into vowing enquiry and it is best left for the Investigating Officer to make investigation and submit his report. The petitioner is expected to co-operate with the Investigating Officer and if any documents are handed over to the Investigating Officer, it is expected from the Investigating Officer to take the minto consideration for the purpose of submitting the report. 7. However, at this stage, this court does not find any valid reason for quashing the FIR. This petition is wholly misconceived and accordingly dismissed. 8. All pending applications shall also stand dismissed.