BHAGAT RAM KOTHARI Vs. STATE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present criminal misc. applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C ., applicants have sought quashing of charge sheet no.15 of 2015 dated 21.09.2015 and the order dated 04.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, whereby the said court has rejected the application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C.. Applicants have also sought quashing of the criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No.21 of 2016 State vs. Bhagat Ram Kothari and others .

(2.) Factual matrix of the case is that an F.I.R. was lodged by the informant with P.S. Kirtinagar District Tehri Garhwal under Section 304 of The Indian Penal Code , 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC ), against M/s Dev Bhoomi Builders, M/s Hillways Construction Company, M/s Madhwa High-tech Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., Public Works Department, Pauri Garhwal, consequent to the death of a person due to felling of under construction Chauras Bridge, on the ground that the under construction bridge had fallen down at 03:00 AM midnight on 25.03.2012 in which 30-35 people got injured and few have died. The construction company was getting the work done without security measures and support and the bridge was not supported by iron bolts properly. Investigation of the incident was carried out. The State Government also ordered the primary inquiry in the matter deputing Principal Secretary to conduct the inquiry along with technical expert Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh, Professor and head of department, Civil Engineering IT, BHU, Banaras. Inquiry report was submitted by the Principal Secretary which revealed that the bridge fell down basically due to faulty design, fabrication or mounting, however, the inquiry report did not hold any departmental officer, firm or contractor responsible for the collapse. Thereafter, in a Public Interest Litigation, the Division Bench of this Court asked the Government about the action taken against the responsible officer. Meanwhile, a three member committee was constituted by the Uttarakhand Government for fixing the liabilities of the erring officer/officials. The committee submitted its report to the Government wherein it was stated that the bridge collapsed due to absence of holding down arrangement at abutment ends of the bridge; casting of deck slab from middle span instead of casting the end span first; selection of components of building section not in line with good engineering practices; change of bearing system by department officers from the one which was designed and proposed by the designer-Dr Vipul Prakash of IIT Roorkee to POT-PTEE bearing system without obtaining the design of hold down arrangements from the supplier of bearings. In the report, different officers/engineers by name were held liable for not performing their work diligently which had led to collapse of the bridge. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the I.O. against the petitioners Mohan Ram Sharma and Bhagat Ram Kothari on 21.09.2015 in respect of offence punishable under Section 304 / 288 / 34 of The Indian Penal Code and one punishable under Section 3 / 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 of IPC . In the charge-sheet, 11 other persons were also made accused but they were not charge-sheeted, as sanction was not accorded by the Government under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. against them, hence, no trial could commence against them and the investigation was closed on 07.12.2016. Being aggrieved by the charge- sheet, the petitioners represented the Government. The State Government, as per requirement of Section 321 of Cr.P.C., taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter, vide order no.2168/XX-3-2016- 08(109)2016 dated 23.12.2016, decided to withdraw the prosecution in public interest. Subsequently, the Public Prosecutor moved an application u/s 321 of Cr.P.C . before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal. In the application, the trial court issued notices to the complainant Mukendra and scribe of F.I.R. Arjun Singh. Both these witnesses appeared before the trial court and stated that they have no objection if the prosecution is withdrawn by the State Government. After hearing the Public Prosecutor and upon perusal of material available on record, the trial court rejected the application moved u/s 321 of Cr.P.C .

(3.) Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Senior Advocate appearing for petitioner Bhagat Ram Kothari and Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate appearing for petitioner Mohan Lal Sharma would submit that the trial court has committed manifest error of law in rejecting the application moved u/s 321 of Cr.P.C . They would submit that the State Government after considering all the relevant factors had decided to withdraw the prosecution.