DEEPAK KHOSLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrage Rajnagar has taken cognizance of an offence Under Section 304A IPC against the present petitioner Deepak Khosla. Being aggrieved of this he has filed the present application Under Section 482 Cr. PC.

(2.) THE facts of the case briefly stated are that the present petitioner is the owner of Marbles LT Upper Factory in village Pasund and deceased Nandlal was an employee of this factory. On 25 -5 -1982, the petitioner is alleged to have asked the deceased Nandlal to go over to the shed of the factory for its repairs. Nandal refused to climb the roof as there were live electric wires passing just about a few feet over the roof. However, the petitioner is alleged to have insisted upon his climbing the roof and it is also alleged that he threatened him that if he did not do so, he would not pay him his dues. Thereupon Nandlal climbed the roof but just after a little while he fell down from the roof and received injuries. Petitioner Deepak Khosla is alleged to have taken him in his car to Udaipur General Hospital and got him admitted there. However, Nandlal succumbed to his injuries on that very day. When he was declared dead the petitioner is alleged to have run away from the hospital without informing any one. The post mortem examination of the deceased was conducted, according to which it was found that he died on account of coma due to head injury. On 26 -5 -1982 at 7.30 P.M. Laluram, brother of the deceased, filed a written report stating the above facts before the SHO Police Station Rajsamand. The Police registered a case Under Section 304A Cr.PC and started investigation. The Police, however, came to a conclusion that it was a case of mere accident and, therefore, it filed a final report. The learned Magistrate did not accept this final report and took cognizance of the offence Under Section 304A IPC against the petitioner.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely no material on the record to establish any rash or negligent act on the part of the present petitioner, leading to the death of deceased Nanalal and even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that Nanalal went over the roof of the factory on the instance of or threats given by the petitioner the mere fact that the petitioner had compelled him to go over the roof does not necessarily show that the petitioner was rash or negligent and there is no nexus between the act of the petitioner in asking Nanalal to go over to the roof for its repairs and the death of Nanalal. He, therefore, submits that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence Under Section 304A IPC against the petitioner in these circumstances.