RAJESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rakesh Kainthla, J, 1. The informant-respondent No.2 made a complaint to the police that her brother-in-law Shashi Ram had taken a contract from Rajeshwar Singh for repairing the breast wall and construction of the room. Shashi Ram, his wife Kamla, Laxmi Devi, Geeta Devi, Sheshmani Chaudhary and the informant were working in the bathroom on 8/7/2019. The lintel was to be laid. Shashi Ram was pulling the iron bar at about 4.00 PM and he fell. The informant and Tajeshwar Singh went to the roof and found that Shashi Ram had died due to electrocution. The electricity wires were near the roof of the bathroom and they were not removed before starting the construction work. The police registered the FIR No. 151 of 2019 and conducted the investigation. The police filed a challan against the present petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 336 and 304-A of IPC.

(2.) The petitioner filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR. It was asserted that the petitioner is a Lawyer and practising in District Court, Shimla. He had gone to Waknaghat, District Solan in connection with partition proceedings. The premises were owned and possessed by the petitioner's father who was looking after the construction work. The petitioner used to help his father whenever assistance was required. The petitioner never gave any contract to the deceased. The construction work of the bathroom was being handled by the petitioner's father. The petitioner is not the owner of the premises nor he was present on the site. It is also apparent from the FIR that Tajeshwar Singh, the brother of the petitioner and not the petitioner was called to the spot after the incident. His father had accompanied the petitioner. He had also instructed the workers not to consume alcohol, however, the quantity of alcohol in the blood of the deceased was found to be 135.38 mg%. The deceased was heavily drunk and unable to walk. The weather was bad and the petitioner's father had asked Shashi Ram not to work in his absence. Shashi Ram died due to his negligence. The allegations against the petitioner are absurd and improbable. No case is made out against the petitioner. HT/LT wires are passing above the house of the petitioner and the petitioner's father raised this issue with the Electricity Department many times. He had sent a communication to the Electricity Department on 11/5/2007 stating that the electricity wires could cause an accident at any time, however, no action was taken. The death of the deceased occurred due to negligence of the Electricity Board. The FIR should have been lodged against the Electricity Board. The damage to the retaining wall was caused because the Electricity Department had tightened the stay wire with the retaining wall. The police did not implead the owner of the building and impleaded the petitioner who has no concern with the incident. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed, and the FIR and consequent proceedings arising out of the same be quashed.

(3.) The State filed a reply asserting that the police collected the evidence during the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Ss. 336 and 304-A of IPC. The matter was listed for consideration of charge on 28/5/2021. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.