RAJ BHARGAVA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short "the Code"] has been filed for quashment of FIR at Crime No.203/2014 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC registered at P.S. Pithampur and further proceedings of Criminal Case No.860/2014 pending before the J.M.F.C., Dhar.

(2.) On 13.08.2013, marg No.76/13 has been registered at Police Station Pithampur. During marg inquiry it reveals that on 11.08.2013, at about 5.00 p.m., deceased Ramesh Singh, an employee of Safelex Company Pithampur, while draining water accumulated on the first floor of under construction building, died on coming in contact with electricity. The construction work was carried out by a partnership firm Interface Engineers and Contractors. It is alleged that the applicant, a partner of the said partnership firm has not made proper arrangement for draining accumulated water during rains whereas Ram Narayan Singh, Manager and Ghanshyam Yadav, Electrical Engineer of the said company have not taken safety measures. They were duty bound to ensure that electric motor may not come in contact with rains water, however, they deployed deceased Ramesh Singh for draining accumulated water without providing safety equipments. On that basis, FIR at Crime No.76/2013 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC has been registered against the applicant and co-accused Ramnarayan Singh and Ghanshyam. After completion of investigation final report has been filed. Considering the material on record, learned Magistrate has explained the particulars of offence.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that deceased Ramesh Singh was an employee of Safelex Company and he never worked under supervision and control of the applicant. Due to heavy rains, the water was accumulated at first floor of the site under construction. The deceased was draining the same. If the case of the prosecution is taken on its entirety, the applicant has not committed any negligence due to which Ramesh Singh has been died. Ramesh has been died probably due to electrocution. It is not the duty of the applicant to ensure that the electric equipments are working safely. There is no rash or negligent act on the part of the applicant which is immediate cause of death. Thus, the prosecution under Section 304-A IPC is not maintainable against the applicant. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jacob Mathew V/s. State of Punjab, 2005 6 SCC 1 held that to impose criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC, it is necessary that death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of anothers' negligence. Thus, no ground for prosecution of the applicant.