BHAGWAN DASS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the Petitioners seek setting aside of the order dated 11th August, 2009 whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has framed charges against the Petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 288/304A/338/337/427 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the impugned order of framing charges against the Petitioners is bad in law as well as on facts. The Petitioners herein were simply the members of the Managing Committee who wanted the temple to be constructed for the welfare of general public. It is stated that the Managing Committee of Hari Mandir had taken the services of Ram Naresh, Thekedar and had entered into an agreement with him to construct the temple in question. All the members of the Managing Committee are laymen and were simply serving the temple. It is further stated that the allegation against the Petitioners that they had malice in providing low grade material is not justified. There are no specific allegations against the Petitioners and no role has been attributed to any one of them. It is further stated that it was either for the contractor, architect or for the labour themselves to decide as to how the support was to be provided to the lanter. If at all the lanter and the roof of the temple have come down, it cannot be due to the rash and negligent act of the Managing Committee to which the Petitioners are members. Reliance is placed on Ataur Rehman vs. State,2010 1 JCC(Del) 214 to contend that in the absence of any criminal intention of which there was no whisper in the statement of the Complainant, it cannot be said that the death of the victim was by rash and negligent act of the Petitioners. Thus the impugned order framing charges against the Petitioners is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

(3.) Per contra learned APP for the State contends that there are specific allegations against the present Petitioners and their role has been clearly specified. Learned Trial Court after considering all the relevant aspects and material available before it, has correctly invoked the provisions of IPC against them. There is a strong prima facie case against the Petitioners being the members of the Committee. There is no illegality in the impugned order framing charges. The present petition has no merit and is labile to be dismissed.