ASHOK CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NARESH Kumar Shukla (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), a chemical engineer joined as a trainee on 28.4.1996 with M/s. Flex Industries Limited, Noida in the newly created district of Gautam Budh Nagar. He in course of employment in the industry met with an accident resulting in his death. Respondent no.2, father of the deceased filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad alleging that the petitioners being the officials of the said industry had assigned creation of a plant imported from France and asked the deceased to work over time. After the tragic incident the complainant visited the premises of the industry and came to know that heavy steel roller which was kept at a height of 1.5 meter supported by two wooden stakes on both sides suddenly feel down on the deceased who was sitting on the floor and making some adjustment of the bracket of the roller. The deceased was immediately rushed to a Nur Singh Home where he breathed his last. Further case of the complaint is that on being asked as to how the deceased was asked to sit and work on a small and narrow place, accused Anil Gupta and Mahabir Saran Confessed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of all the accused persons and requested to pardon them. The complainant approached the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and requested the police to enquire into the incident but it was to of no effect. It was thereafter that he moved the court by filing complaint. Learned Magistrate upon examination of the complainant and the witness produced by him took cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A.I.P.C. and Summoned all the accused persons. Thereupon, the accused persons filed a petition to recall the order of cognizance and the same having been rejected, they approached the Sessions Court in revision which also did not yield desired result. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional court, they filed present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings in the com[plaint case bearing no.627 of 1996 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad.

(2.) SRI Gopal S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken in entirety and on their face value do not make out any offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and since the deceased was a young engineer and met with tragic death due to accident in the factory, the learned Magistrate made emotional approach to the case and without there being sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused persons took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued process for their appearance. It is true, while taking cognizance of the offence, the Magistrate is not required to give reasons, but his order must show that he applied judicial mind to fined if primafacie case is disclosed from the averments made in the complaint and the statements of the complainant and his witness if any, for proceeding against the accused. In the case on hand, the impugned order, annexure-4 does not reveal that the learned Magistrate made a judicial approach to the case and was satisfied from the available materials that prima? facie case under Section 304-A I.P.C. is made out. In that view of the matter, it was urged that the criminal complaint being the outcome of anger of the complainant, order of the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and consequent order issuing notice to the accused persons should be quashed. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant would strenuously urge that law does not mandate that the Magistrate should pass a detailed order about his satisfaction before taking cognizance of the offence and therefore, the impugned summoning order, annexure-4 which is the based on satisfaction of judicial conscience cannot be scraped or rejected. As to the factual aspect of the case, he submitted that since death of the deceased was as a result of the accident, occurred due to rash or negligent act of the accused persons and at this stage when cognizance of the offence has only been taken, the Court should be loathe to interfere with the impugned order and bring the criminal proceeding to a halt in exercise of inherent power.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners in the present case is that since the facts narrated in the complaint do not constitute any offence, more so an offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. and this aspect of the matter having not been considered both by the Magistrate as well as the revisional court, this Court would be well within its jurisdiction to consider the same and quash the impugned order consequent criminal proceedings in exercise of inherent power.