Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 524 (JHR)

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2023-04-18

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Achinto Sen, learned counsel for State and Mrs. Alpana Verma, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/3 Case No.223/2012 including order taking cognizance dated 17.10.2012, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M, at Ranchi. 3. The complaint has been filed alleging therein that an accident occurred in the Project on 01.05.2012 and the nature of the accident is motorcycle accident that while a front end loader, was reversing, one Sunil Kumar Mahto positioning, himself behind the tipper and was busy in conversation with his co worker and as a result of which when the tipper was being reversed he was knocked down and sustained injury and succumbed while treatment. 4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle in question was being driven by accused no. 1 and the petitioners are the officers of the CCL. He draws the attention of the Court to the complaint petition and submits that it has been alleged that the accused no. 1 is liable under section 190 of Coal Mines Regulation, 1957. He submits that it 2 has been alleged that for violation of Section 36(1) (a) (ii) and 123(6) (a)of the Coal Mines Regulations, 1957, the petitioners are liable. He further submits that the said rules only speaks of a thorough supervision of all operations in the mine and dust shall be suppressed as close as possible to its source of formation. He submits that what is nature of closeness has not been disclosed therein and this rule is not attracted so far these petitioners are concerned. He submits that the order taking cognizance is also not in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, Mrs. Alpana Verma, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that Deputy Director of Mines has found that there is an accident pursuant to that one person has died and the vehicle in question was driven by the accused no. 1. She submits that in that view of the matter the case was filed and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. She submits that in this background this Court sitting under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may not quash the entire proceeding at this stage. 6. 1. She submits that in that view of the matter the case was filed and the learned court has rightly taken cognizance. She submits that in this background this Court sitting under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may not quash the entire proceeding at this stage. 6. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the cognizance order. 7. In view of above submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the court has gone through the contents of the complaint as well as order taking cognizance and finds that admittedly these petitioners are the officers of the CCL. The vehicle in question was not driven by the petitioners rather the vehicle in question was driven by accused no. 1 and incident took place and one person left for his heavenly abode. Provisions of Section 36(1) (a) (ii) and 123(6) (a) Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 is not attracted as nature of closeness is not disclosed therein. For correct appreciation of the case Section 36(1) (a) (ii) and 123(6) (a) Coal Mines Regulations, 1957 is quoted here-in-below:- “36 (1)(a)(ii):- Appointment of Officials and competent persons 1(a). The owner, agent or manager shall appoint such number of competent persons, including officials and technicians as is sufficient to secure, during each of the working shifts- (i)…………………………………………………………… (ii) a thorough supervision of all operations in mine……………” 123(6) (a) :- To prevent the liberation and accumulation of dust and the propagation of airborne dust, the following provisions shall have effect namely:- (a) Dust shall be suppressed as close as possible to its source of formation; ……………………………………………………………………………..” 8. Looking into above provisions under which these petitioners have been charged and the petitioners are not responsible for discharging their responsibility and how much closeness has not been disclosed in the complaint and it is required to be disclosed how many persons are required which has also not been disclosed. Further, looking into the cognizance order the Court finds that there is non application of judicial mind as the learned court has inserted the word ‘cognizance’ in blank space and the word ‘cognizance’ is in different handwriting. 9. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/3 Case No. 223/2012 including order taking cognizance dated 17.10.2012, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M, at Ranchi are quashed and set aside. 10. This petition stands disposed of. 9. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C/3 Case No. 223/2012 including order taking cognizance dated 17.10.2012, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M, at Ranchi are quashed and set aside. 10. This petition stands disposed of. Pending, I.A. if any stands disposed of. Interim order is vacated.