GEETHA RAMESH Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who have been arraigned as A3 to A5 in C. C. No. 100 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udagamandalam, a case taken on file based on the final report of the respondent submitted after investigation in Crime No. 109 of 2006 registered on the file of G1, Town West Police Station, Udagamandalam, have filed this petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the final report filed against them in the abovesaid case for offences punishable under Sections 304-A and 337, I. P. C.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this petition can be summarised as follows : The third petitioner herein is an advocate practising in High Court of Madras. First petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the son of the third petitioner. The first and second petitioners have jointly purchased the property comprised in Survey No. 32 of Theettukkal Village, Udagamandalam Town, Nilgiris District under a sale deed dated 23-9-2005 bearing Document No. 961/ 2005 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Udagamandalam. Total extent of the property is 22 cents. As the petitioners wanted to construct a house in the said land, they engaged the first accused in the above said case by name Sundaram alias Sundaramoorthy as the contractor for doing the construction work. After performing Boomi Pooja in the month of January 2006, the said contractor engaged the second accused Nanda alias Nanda Kumar as labour Sub- Contractor for doing the earth work to construct a retaining wall. While the earth work was in progress, the earth caved in and there occurred a landslide on 28-2-2006 at about 3.30 p.m. which resulted in the death of one of the women workers by name Jayasri and injuries to six other workers engaged by the sub-contractor. Pursuant to the said accident, the statement of Jayaram, husband of the deceased was recorded by the police and a case was registered in Crime No. 109 of 2008 on the file of Udagamandalam West Police Station for alleged offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A against three named accused persons. They are 1. Sundaram alias Sundaramoorthy, 2. Ramesh, the respondent herein and 3. Nanda alias Nandakumar, the sub-contractor. The above said Sundaram alias Sundaramoorthy and Nandakumar were described in the First Information Report as Engineer and mason (masthri) respectively. After investigation, the respondent submitted a final report alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304-A, I.P.C. by the petitioners herein and the abovesaid Sundaram alias Sundaramoorthy and Nanda alias Nandakumar. The array of parties has been rearranged as follows; A1- Sundaram alias Sundaramoorthy, A2 - Nanda alias Nandakumar, A3 - Geetha Ramesh, A4 - Aswan, and A5 - V. Ramesh. In the said final report, it was alleged that A1 & A2 building contractor and labour Subcontractor and A3 to A5 being owners and beneficiaries of the work undertaken by A1 and A2 failed to take care by providing safety equipments to the workers engaged in digging the earth for foundation work and hence they were liable to be prosecuted and punished for an offence punishable under Section 304-A regarding the death of Jayasri and six counts (sic) of an offence punishable under Section 337, I.P.C. relating to the injuries caused to Malathy, Yasodha, Munisamy, Parvathy, Vasantha and Vijaya, all engaged as workers for the foundation work. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Udagamandalam took cognizance of the offences by taking the case on file as C. C. No. 100 of 2008 and issued process to the accused persons including the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, Accused Nos. 3 to 5 (petitioners 1 to 3 herein) have come forward with the present petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the abovesaid final report so far as the petitioners are concerned.

(3.) The petition was taken up for hearing on merit, without formally admitting the same, after the respondent entered appearance through the Government Advocate (Crl. Side). The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the respondent-police came forward to argue the case without filing a formal counter-affidavit. Thus, the arguments advanced by Mr. A. Ramesh learned senior counsel representing Mr. T. Thiyagarajan, learned counsel for the petitioner and by Mr. I. Paul Nobel Devakumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the respondent were heard. The petition, affidavit and the documents submitted in the form of typed set of papers were also perused.