SACHIN KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash the Crime No. 882/2015 resulting in Criminal Case No. 129260/2015] pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that Balram Pradhan died on 18th November, 2015. On this information the Police Station, Ranjhi lodged Marg No. 87/2015. Accordingly, inquest was made. Thereafter, it was found that Balram Pradhan had gone to work under contractor, Jinesh Singh Parihar, who had taken the contract to construct the house of petitioner-Sachin Kumar Jain. At about 10.30 a.m., on a three-storied building when Balram Pradhan was doing certain work, he fell on the ground. Asa result thereof he sustained injuries on face, nose and forehead. Immediately he was rushed to Ranjhi Hospital and then to Metro Hospital. But he died during treatment. It was found that the petitioner-Sachin Kumar Jain and the contractor-Jinesh Singh Parihar died not to take any precaution for the safety of the labourers, hence, Balram Pradhan died falling from third storey. Accordingly, offence under Section 304-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been registered at Police Station, Ranjhi. After due investigation, charge sheet No. 761/2015 has been filed on 21st December, 2015. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class registered the Criminal Case No. 129260/2015 and proceeded with the trial.

(3.) The petitioner-Sachin Kumar Jain, the owner of the house, has filed this petition on the ground that the petitioner has been falsely implicated for the death of Balram Pradhan. The contractor failed to take safety measures against, whom challan has already been filed. The petitioner had no relation with the labourers. The petitioner was the only responsible for supply of building materials. The labourers were under the control of contractor-Jinesh Singh Parihar. The petitioner further claimed that the conduct of the petitioner does not amount to rashness or negligence. The petitioner having cited several case laws claim that labourers was engaged by the contractor. The petitioner has no nexus with the labourers. The petitioner, as alleged, stated that the parents of the deceased on 16th February, 2016 made an application to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur wherein they have lodged complaint that it is not a case of accident, but the deceased was murdered by a co-labourer, who were working with the deceased at the time of accident.