Madras High Court
C.Muthuramalingam vs State Represented By on 27 July, 2020
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.OP.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.07.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020 and
Crl.MP.No.69 of 2020
C.Muthuramalingam ... Petitioner in Crl.OP.No.121 of 2020
1.V.Mathivanan
2.R.Jayaraman
3.M.Siddayan ... Petitioners in Crl.OP.No.1950 of 2020
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
B-5, Harbour Police Station,
Chennai-01
2.Venkatesan ... Respondents in both Crl.O.P.'s
Prayer in Crl.OP.No.121 of 2020: Criminal Original Petition filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to
the charge sheet in CC.No.2916 of 2013 pending on the file of the XVI
Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, George Town, Chennai and quash the
same as far as the petitioner/ accused are concerned.
Prayer in Crl.OP.No.1950 of 2020: Criminal Original Petition filed
Page 1 of 10
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.OP.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records pertaining to
the charge sheet in CC.No.2916 of 2013 pending on the file of the XVI
Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, George Town, Chennai and quash the
same as far as the petitioners/ accuseds are concerned.
Crl.OP.No.121 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Karthikeyan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No Appearance
Crl.OP.No.1950 of 2020
For Petitioners : Mr.J.Sathya Narayana Prasad
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Karthikeyan,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : Mr.R.Sreedhar
COMMON O R D E R
These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.2916/2013 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 304(a), 279 and 337 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Page 2 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020 there are totally five accused, in which the petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A5 for the charges under Sections 304(a), 279 and 337 of IPC read with 34 of IPC. He further submitted that there is absolutely no prima facie case made out as against the petitioners to attract the offences under Sections 304(a), 279 and 337 of IPC read with 34 of IPC. According to the prosecution, the petitioners are being the employees of the Chennai Port Trust failed to supervise the Shed Master to carry out his duty. The petitioners are employees in Chennai Port Trust. While being so, on 24.10.2020, four persons were sleeping in the JD Shed III at Chennai Port Trust, and the first accused being driver of the tipper lorry while he had taken the lorry reverse, he ran over the said four persons, in which three persons died and one person was injured. Immediately, a case was registered in Crime No.53 of 2010. When the occurrence took place, the second accused was working as Section Superintendent, third accused working as Shed Master, fourth accused working as Assistant Traffic Manager(ATM) Traffic Department and fifth accused working as Harbour Safety Officer. Except they were on duty under Chennai Port Trust they are nothing to do with the crime committed by the first Page 3 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020 accused person. Therefore, he sought for quashment of the entire proceedings.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are totally five accused, in which the petitioners are A2 to A5. Admittedly, the accused persons 2 to 5 are employees of Chennai Port Trust and they were on duty on 24.10.2015 and they failed to supervise the premises and also failed to supervise the first accused while he was taking tipper lorry reverse. Therefore they are also liable to be punished for the offences under Sections 304(a), 279 and 337 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC.
4. Heard Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail and Mr.J.Sathya Narayana Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.S.Karthikeyan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the first respondent and Mr.R.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the second respondent.
5. There are totally five accused, in which the Page 4 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020 petitioners are arrayed as A2 to A5 in CC.No.2916 of 2013 having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 304(a), 279 and 337 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.10.2010, due to rain four persons had entered JD Shed III and had slept in the shed. While being so, the first accused, the driver of the tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN 36 Z 6970 while taking the lorry reverse, after loading potash, had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the said four persons, in which three persons died and one of them was severely injured and admitted into hospital.
6. Insofar as the second accused is concerned, he was working as Section Superintendent on the date of occurrence and he had to supervise the employees those who were working in JD Shed III. He failed to supervise the Shed and as such no one noticed about the sleeping person. Insofar as the third accused is concerned, he was working as Shed Master in night shift on 24.10.2020 and on the date of occurrence there was no electric light, therefore he failed to supervise Page 5 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020 the shed and failed to prevent the public from entering into the shed. Insofar as the fourth accused, he was working as Assistant Traffic Manager and he also failed to supervise and as such because of his negligence, the accident took place and three persons died. Insofar as the fifth accused is concerned, he was working as Harbour Safety Officer and he also failed to supervise and failed to provide safety measures to the employees and as such the accident took place.
7. All the petitioners were charged for the offences under Sections 304(a), 279 and 337 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC. The provisions under Section 279 of IPC read as follows:
"279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.—Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
Admittedly, the petitioners did not drive any vehicle and they were working as Section Superintendent, Shed Master, Assistant Traffic Manager(ATM) Traffic Department and Harbour Safety Officer Page 6 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020 respectively. Therefore, to attract the offences under Section 279 IPC, there is absolutely no prima facie case is made out as against the petitioners.
8. The provisions under Section 337 of IPC read as follows:
"337. Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.—Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
Admittedly, the petitioners never caused any hurt to any person even according to the prosecution. Therefore, there is no material as against the petitioners to attract the offences under Section 337 of IPC.
9. The provisions under Section 304(a) of IPC read as follows:
"304A. Causing death by negligence.—Whoever causes Page 7 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020 the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
Admittedly, the petitioners did not indulge in any negligent act and no common intention for them to attract any of the charges under Sections 304(a), 279 and 337 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC.
10. Therefore, all the charges framed as against the petitioners cannot be sustained and the entire proceedings is nothing but clear abuse of process of court. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be directed for ordeal of trial since if the trial continues no purpose would be served.
11. In view of the above discussion, these criminal original petitions are allowed and the proceedings in CC.No.2916/2013 on the file of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai is quashed as against the petitioners alone. Further, considering that the case is of the year 2013, the trial court is directed to proceed Page 8 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020 with the trial as against the first accused and complete the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
27.07.2020 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order lok Page 9 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J lok To
1. The XVI Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, George Town, Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police, B-5, Harbour Police Station, Chennai-01
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
Crl.O.P.Nos.121 & 1950 of 2020 and Crl.MP.No.69 of 2020 27.07.2020 Page 10 of 10 http://www.judis.nic.in