Madhya Pradesh High Court
R.K.Mittal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
MCRC-9067-2016
(R.K.MITTAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Indore, Dated : 31-10-2017
Shri A.S. Garg, learned senior counsel with Shri Swapnesh
Garg, learned counsel for the applicant.
Shri Rajesh Joshi and Shri Swapnil Sharma, learned
counsel for the respondent/State.
Shri Rakesh Jain, Divisional Manager, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation, Ujjain is present before this Court in person.
Matter is heard with consent of both the parties. This application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of F.I.R. Dated 25.07.2015 in Crime No.116/2015, Police Station-Sarvan, District-Ratlam and also for quashing the charge-sheet arising out of the same Crime Number bearing No.222/2016 dated 12.08.2016 filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Sailana, District Ratlam.
The charge-sheet is filed against the applicant under Section 304 of IPC. The applicant was the representative of the contractor, who entered into a contract with Madhya Pradesh Road Construction Corporation Limited. The company in whose favour the work was granted, was known as 'M/s Agroh Ratlam Tollways Private Limited' and the contract was known as 'Concession Agreement for Development of Ratlam - Sailana-Banswada (SH-39) Road on BOT (Toll + Annuity) Basis'.
According to prosecution story, on 25.07.2015 at about 5:45 in the morning, the vehicle bearing registration No.MP 09 GF 8378, which was driven by driver Tej Singh S/o Chhaganlal in which, onions were loaded and there were some passengers also, reached on the culvert near village Amba. The right side of the vehicle was struck in the mud and the vehicle fell down from the culvert, due to which, Taj Monammad and Mohammad Hasan died. During the investigation, it was found that the approach road to the culvert was damaged due to heavy rainfall and due to this reason, the vehicle fell down in Nala, which caused death.
After investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 304 of IPC against the present applicant, who was the In- charge of the company in whose favour the work was alloted.
Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there was unexpectedly heavy rains on the date of incident. 16 inches of rain fall was recorded within 24 hours and due to which the water was flowing over the culvert and due to this reason, the approach road was damaged and a deep pit was created as the material used for making the approach road flowed away with the water. The accident took place as the driver failed to notice the pit created by heavy flow of water and the vehicle fell down. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that during the investigation, the Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited got the culvert and the approach road inspected by L.N. Malviya, who was appointed as consultant for the work and his report dated 06.08.2015 was filed by him. According to the report, the concrete structure of the culvert was found in sound condition and damage to the approach road was due to heavy and unexpected rainfall on that particular day. According to learned counsel for the applicant it was vis- major or act of god, and therefore, responsibility cannot be assigned to any particular person.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submits that the work was also inspected by Engineers of Public Work Department and according to their report, the present applicant in whose possession the road was, failed to take necessary step for warning the vehicles plying over the road. According to the report, he failed to do the necessary petrolling on the road.
Shri Rakesh Jain, Divisional Manager, Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation informed the Court that no fault was found in construction of the road and the culvert was damaged only due to heavy and inordinate rainfall that took place on the date of incident. He further submitted the copy of the agreement and according to which, the contractor was not under liability to undertake petrolling on the road. On the contrary, the agreement mentioned that he was to facilitate petrolling by the police during such conditions.
It was known to everybody that there was heavy rainfall on that particular day and it was the duty of the responsible District Officers to take necessary measures in respect of the bridges and culverts felling under their jurisdiction. The construction agency could not be held responsible for any negligence Prama facie there appears to be no evidence to attribute any negligence on part of the present applicant and no case is made out under Section 304 or 304(A) of IPC. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The F.I.R. and charge-sheet arising out of Crime No.116/2015, Police Station-Sarvan, District-Ratlam is hereby quashed. The applicant is discharged from offence under Section 304 of IPC.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE