Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Parshottambhai Donga vs State Of Gujarat on 19 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 28/02/2025
Pronounced On : 19/03/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 13806 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI PARSHOTTAMBHAI DONGA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR SOHAM JOSHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being C.R.No.I-11213015201170 of 2020 registered with Gondal City Police Station, District Rajkot Rural for the offences under Sections 304 and 114 of Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the present applicants.
Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined
2. Relief claimed in the application reads as under :-
"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this application;
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being C.R. No. 1-11213015201170 of 2020 registered with Gondal City Police Station, Dist.:
Rajkot Rural, dated 18.08.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, investigation thereon and all consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR;
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the proceedings of C.R. No. 1-11213015201170 of 2020 registered with Gondal City Police Station, Dist.: Rajkot Rural, dated 18.08.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 304 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, investigation thereon and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR;
(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s that may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case"
3. Factual narration in brief leading to filing of petition are as under :-
3.1. It is case of the prosecution inter alia alleging that the present applicants original accused being partners of one Donga Biofuel Factory, since the factory is in manufacturing of Biodiesel by resorting to dangerous process undertaken by them, in such a work and a process to be undertaken within the factory premises with the help of labour, it is alleged that the present applicants being partners of the said factory have been responsible in not providing any sort of training to the workers Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined as also procuring a work permit under the factory premises, in absence of necessary fire safety measures and in absence of a technical expert as expected to remain physically present at the factory premises; they have been negligent as partners of the said factory by not installing flame proof electrification system and/or first aid fire fighting system, in seeing to it that a dangerous process is undertaken without even a deep pipe applied over the storage tank as and when a dangerous material is being transferred overhead nor any safety wall is kept in a near periphery of the said storage tank, on account of such negligence only, one worker namely Pratapbhai Gopalbhai Bamaniya, on account of a source of spark flair up near a vent pipe, a flammable atmosphere was created because of which the deceased Pratapbhai was thrown out of the top of the storage tank because of the pressure applied and eventually passed away on account of such accident. Hence, FIR is registered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code as against all the partners of the Donga Biofuel Factory.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Pratik Barot for the applicants putting FIR in microscopic analysis submitted that the petitioners who are partners of Donga Biofuel Factory, in which, accident took place resulting into death of employee / labourer -
Pratapbhai Bamaniya, were not physically present at the time of accident. He would submit that in FIR offence under section 304 of IPC has been alleged against the applicants but on plain reading of FIR, what could be noticed that during process of preparing final bio fuel, accident took place in the factory due to which boiler was exposed, having ultimate result of unfortunate Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined death of labourer. However, in such circumstances, more particularly, for accident which took place in factory premises, offence under section 304 of IPC cannot be attracted to the applicants as either intention or knowledge which are essential ingredients to constitute offence under section 304 Part I or Part II are lacking in the matter. Learned advocate Mr.Barot submitted that FIR if taken on its face value does not disclose offence under section 304 of IPC. Putting comparison of section304 and 304A of IPC, learned advocate Mr.Barot submits that offence of culpable homicide would not amount to murder as it fails to attraction as it is missing basic of intention or knowledge and at the most it could be rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. Therefore, he submits that in the present case, the applicants have been wrongly charged with offence under section 304 of IPC.
4.1. Relying on judgment of this Court in the case of Girishbhai Maganlal Pandya v/s. State of Gujarat [2016 (1) GLH 126], judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Keshub Mahindra v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh [1996 (6) SCC 129] (popularly known as Bhopal tragedy case), judgment of this Court in the case of Imtiaz Yusufbhai Shaikh v/s. State of Gujarat [2024 (3) GLR 2027] and judgment of this Court in the case of Dharmednrabhai @ Bakabhai Joitaram Patel v/s. State of Gujarat [2022 (0) Cr.LJ 2773], learned advocate Mr.Barot submitted to quash FIR against the applicants.
5. Per contra, learned APP opposing arguments of learned advocate Mr.Barot for the applicants submitted that accident Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined occurred on 18.08.2020 and immediately, thereafter, the applicants have approached this Court by filing present petition for quashing. FIR/ Investigation in the case is not proceeded. FIR at this stage stand alone without having any further investigation as interim relief was granted on 25.09.2020 stopping further investigation of the case. Hence, at this stage, it is difficult to say that no offence under section 304 of IPC is made out and only offence under section 304A of IPC is attracted. He would submit that FIR taken on its face value indicates that the applicants who are partners of Donga Biofuel Factory were knowing fully well that certain safety measures are not properly attended while in process of making biofuel and due to which fire broke out in boiler and it was exploded resulting into death of poor labourer - Pratapbhai who was working at the relevant time and after receiving injuries, he died. Not putting safety measures in process of making bio fuel prima facie reflecting in the FIR indicates that it was within knowledge of partners Donga Biofule Factory i.e. applicants and yet having carried out process of bio fuel which is highly inflammable, explosion took place in boiler which took life of deceased. Prima facie offence under section 304 of IPC is made out and therefore, it is submitted to dismiss the petition.
6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides, the question arise whether the Court should exercise jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR which was filed on 18.08.2020, in a petition which is filed just thereafter on 23.09.2020.
Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined
7. On 25.09.2020, while issuing notice, this Court passed following order :-
"Heard Mr. Pratik Barot, learned advocate appearing for the applicants and Ms.C.M.Shah, learned APP appearing for the respondent - State.
Let there be notice making it returnable on 15.10.2020. Learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of respondent - State.
In the meantime, the applicants are directed to cooperate with the investigation. However, charge shall not be filed without prior permission of this Court.
Registry is hereby directed to serve respondent No. 2 via email / fax through concerned police station."
8. Hon'ble Apex Court in number of cases laid down scope and ambit of High Court's power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. Inherent power though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the tests laid down in the section itself. Authority of the Court exists for advancement of justice provided that any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the Court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the statue [ See : Asmathunnisa v/s. State - 2011 Cr.L.J. 2594 (SC)].
9. In Preeti Gupta v/s. State [(2010) 7 SCC 667], the Hon'ble Apex Court while addressing scope and power of High Court under section 482 of Cr.P.C. held in para 18 and 19 as under :-
"18. The powers possessed by the High Court under Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution but court's failing to use the power for advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice.
19. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy; more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage."
10. In State of Karnataka v/s. L. Muniswamy [AIR 1977 SC 1489], the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that in criminal cases, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice. The ends of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered according to laws made by the legislature. It was further observed that considerations justifying the exercise of inherent powers for securing ends of justice naturally vary from case to case and a jurisdiction as wholesome as the one conferred by section 482 ought not to be encased within the straitjacket of rigid formula.
11. Keeping in mind aforesaid principles, let examine Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined arguments of both the sides to see whether the applicants have made out case to exercise extraordinary power at the stage of filing of FIR. Firstly, let refer to relevant content of FIR so as to find out exact incident (it is in Gujarati, for better understanding it is translated in English), which reads as under :-
"In connection with this case, Shri D. B. Monpara, Factory Inspector inspected the site the day after the incident, i.e., on 16/07/2020. He sent his detailed report on the letterhead of the Office of the Joint Director, Industrial Safety and Health, Block No.7, 7th floor, Bahumali Bhavan, Race-course, Rajkot, vide letter No. JODAISEHE/RAJ//2020/2088-2090 for investigation, on 27/07/2020. According to the report, biodiesel is produced in the said factory using vegetable oil, methanol and potassium hydroxide through hazardous processes such as esterification and distillation. The production process involves the esterification reaction of vegetable oil and methanol in the presence of a potassium hydroxide catalyst. Thereafter, crude methyl ester (biodiesel) is passed through a resin tower and methanol is distilled in a methanol recovery unit. After the recovery of the methanol, the biodiesel is transferred to a filtration storage tank (25 kL) through a cooling tank. The methanol, being soluble with the unreacted methanol, moves further in the process, forming a mixture with the product due to changes in the process parameters. When this mixture is transferred from the cooling tank to the filtration storage tank, there is a possibility of vapour formation of the mixture due to the material of the transfer line flowing directly onto the tank surface from a height, as the tank lacked a deep pipe. The vapour density of methanol and biodiesel is 1.1, as per the MSDS, meaning it is heavier than air. Therefore, it takes time for the vapour of this mixture to disperse into the surrounding environment. Thus, an explosion occurred due to a flashback fire, caused by a contact of source of spark near the tank/vessel containing such flammable atmosphere or its vent pipe and deceased Pratapbhai Gopalbhai Bamaniya, who was working on the tank was flung with a top of the tank and collided with the factory Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined shed and fell to the ground from a height of 27 feet, sustaining grievous injuries on the head. He was taken to Gondal Government Hospital in an ambulance, covered in blood, where he was declared dead by the doctor on duty.
The accident occurred as a result of a vapour explosion in a 25-kilolitre biodiesel storage tank, about 27 feet in height, caused by a flashback fire triggered by a contact of source of spark near the tank or its vent pipe, which contained a flammable atmosphere on account of material flowing directly onto the tank surface from a height due to the absence of a deep pipe. Thus, a serious negligence is found on the part of the factory owner. Further, all work and cleaning associated with the plants and equipment in the biodiesel production factory should be carried out by trained workers under the supervision of responsible individuals with the necessary knowledge and awareness of the hazards, in accordance with the work permit system. However, the factory owner allowed labourer Pratapbhai Gopalbhai Bamaniya to work without proper information or a work permit. Further, no technical expert or responsible individual was present at the time of the incident. Even sparking tools, flameproof electrical fittings and a first-aid fire-fighting system were not installed in the flammable hazard zone. There was no provision for a properly sized bund wall (dyke) around the storage tank and there was no efficient exhaust ventilation system to prevent the accumulation of flammable vapours in the factory. The Factory Inspector has opined that the said serious accident has occurred due to the reasons mentioned above."
12. Admittedly, the offence is registered under section 304 of IPC. Chief argument of learned advocate Mr.Barot was that FIR is lacking essential ingredients of section 304 of IPC being intention or knowledge on the part of the applicants for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined
13. At the outset, let refer section 304 of IPC.
"304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.--
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."
14. Plain reading of section 304 of IPC makes it clear that it is in two parts. First part of section is referred to section 304 (Part I) and second part is referred as section 304(Part II). If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it would fall in part I of section 304 of IPC. Further if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it would fall in part II of section 304 of IPC.
15. The moot question arise how can the existence of the requisite intention or knowledge be proved, seeing that there are Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined internal and invisible acts of the mind ? The observation and experience enable us to judge of the connection between men's conduct and their intentions. Prudent man does not usually commit certain acts unintentionally and generally have no difficulty in inferring from his conduct what was his real intention on given occasion.
16. Since it was argued that on plain reading of FIR, at the most offence under section 304A of IPC is attracted, let refer section 304A of IPC, which reads as under :-
"304A. Causing death by negligence.--
Whoever causes 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."
17. Above provision deals with homicidal death by rash or negligent act. It does not create a new offence, but it is outside the range of section 299 and 300 of IPC and covers those cases where death has been caused without 'intention' or 'knowledge'. The legislature has used the words "not amounting to culpable homicide" in the provision of section 304A of IPC and it convey that the section seeks to put those cases under caption of rash and negligent act where there is neither intention to cause death, nor knowledge to cause death or cause injury which is Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined likely to cause death appears. It applies to acts which are rash or negligent and cause of death of another person.
18. Thus, there is fine distinction between Section 304 and Section 304A. Later one covers the cases where death is caused by doing a rash or negligent act which does not amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder within the meaning of Section 299 or culpable homicide amounting to murder under section 300 of IPC. In other words, Section 304A excludes all the ingredients of Section 299 and also of Section 300. Major difference in section 304 and 304A is intention and /or knowledge. In former i.e. section 304, intention and knowledge to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death is essential, whereas, in section 304A, both are missing and act of rash and negligent is sufficient to bring case within four corners of section 304A of IPC.
19. Learned advocate Mr.Barot intended the Court to believe that death of labourer took place due to accident in factory premises, where, both intention and knowledge are missing. As observed herein above, the petition was filed within one month of registration of FIR. Investigation in the matter is yet to be carried on. At this stage, material available before the Court is FIR as it is to decide intention or knowledge being essential ingredients of offence under section 304 exists or not.
20. Relevant para of FIR is reproduced herein above. It is alleged that deep pipe was not fitted in storage tank where bio Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined fuel after passing through certain process was manufactured. It is alleged that since deep pipe was not fitted in storage tank, bio fuel which is highly inflammable in nature fall from top of 27 feet to surface. Tanker which was having inflammable material, having received spark due to back fire, exploded and labourer Pratapbhai working at the place received injury and lost life. It is alleged that labourer was not informed and brought fact about manufacturing of bio fuel is highly inflammable produce and without having any permit, was permitted to work in absence of technical experts or responsible persons. Prima facie it is found that because of such act, labourer lost his life.
20.1. It is submitted that aforesaid act be treated as rash and negligent act or case of accidental death but it should not be treated as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Since intention or knowledge being essential elements are missing, this submission is hard to accept at this juncture particularity reading FIR on its face vale.
21. Once investigation is completed, picture would be clear and on filing of report under section 173 of Cr.P.C. would make it abundantly clear that whether it was accidental death due to rash and negligent act or whether there was any knowledge on the part of the applicants which caused bodily injury to the deceased, which was sufficient to cause death. At this stage, the Court should lean from quashing FIR at threshold. Learned advocate Mr.Barot failed to point out any material on record which indicates that case falls under section 304A of IPC and Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined not under section 304 of IPC.
22. With profit, I quote observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh Dutt Joshi v/s. State [(2001) 8 SCC 570] reported in 2001 (8) SCC 570 has held as under :-
"The principle embodied in Section is based upon the maxim: Quando lex aliquid alicuiconcedit, concedere videtur id quo res ipsa esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things, without which the thing itself would be unavailable. Section does not confer any new power, but only declares that the High Court possesses inherent powers for the purposes specified in the Section. As Lacunae are sometimes found in procedureal law, the Section has been embodied to cover such Lacunae wherever they are discovered. The use of extraordinary powers conferred upon the High Court under this Section are however required to be reserved, as far as possible, for extraordinary cases."
23. Inherent powers of High Court therefore, should be exercised in great caution. In the case of CBI v/s. Aryan Singh [2023 (5) Scale 533], the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para 4 and 4.1 as under :-
"4. Having gone through the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings and discharging the accused, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction in quashing the entire criminal proceedings in exercise of the limited powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined 4.1 From the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a mini trial and/or the High Court was considering the applications against the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court on conclusion of trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the common impugned judgment and order has observed that the charges against the accused are not proved. This is not the stage where the prosecution / investigating agency is/are required to prove the charges. The charges are required to be proved during the trial on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution / investigating agency. Therefore, the High Court has materially erred in going in detail in the allegations and the material collected during the course of the investigation against the accused, at this stage. At the stage of discharge and/or while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider "whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further against the accused for which the accused is required to be tried or not"
24. Reiterating same principle, recently, the Hon'ble Apex Curt in the case of Manik V v/s. Kadapala Sreyes Reddy [2023 (0) JX (SC) 1297], in para 3 to 9 it has held as under :-
"3. The factors which the Court is required to take into consideration, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") and while considering an application for discharge are totally different.
4. The least we can say is that the High Court in the impugned order, while exercising jurisdiction Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has almost conducted a mini trial and quashed the proceedings.
5. Learned Single Judge of the High Court has elaborately discussed the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
6. Whether the testimony of the witnesses is trustworthy or not has to be found out from the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the witnesses when they stand in the box at the stage of such trial.
7. Such an exercise, in our considered view, is not permissible while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
8. The scope of interference, while quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and that too for a serious offence like Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is very limited. The Court would exercise its power to quash the proceedings only if it finds that taking the case at its face value, no case is made out at all.
9. At the stage of deciding an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not permissible for the High Court to go into the correctness or otherwise of the material placed by the prosecution in the chargesheet. The High Court by the impugned order has done exactly the same."
25. In view of above, and applying ratio thereof, the applicants have failed to make out case of interference of this Court to exercise power to quash the impugned FIR. On plain reading of FIR, it cannot be said that no case is made out at all. Whether incident attracts offence under section 304 or 304A of IPC can be decided in trial, or on completion of investigation but at threshold, the FIR cannot be quashed. Apt to note that remedy to file discharge application is available to the applicants, if charge sheet is filed under section 304 of IPC. According to applicants they have not committed offence under section 304 but material on record attracts section 304A.
Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined Submission is hallow and baseless. Apposite to note that proceedings under section 482 are different than proceedings for discharge. Argument of learned advocate Mr.Barot are more like arguing discharge application.
26. Above finding takes us to see whether judgment relied by learned advocate Mr.Barot helps him or not. In the case of Girishbhai Pandya (supra), it was occasion for this Court to decide the issue in discharge application, whereby this Court compared offence under section 304 and 304A of IPC in background of material collected during investigation. Judgemnt of Keshub Mahindra (supra) (popularly known as Bhopal Gas Tragedy) is on the same footing. This Court in the case of Imtiyas (supra) quashed the FIR for the offence under section 304 of IPC in exercise of powers under section 482 in fact situation where offence under section 304 was alleged against officer of GEB on ground that 11 KV feeder line was passing through agricultural field and deceased touched to KV line while he was riding on tractor and was electrocuted. The facts of that case was entirely different and therefore, ratio laid in the case of Imtiaz (supra) cannot be applied in the present case considering it as straitjacket formula.
27. Judgment of Dharmendrabhai (supra) is case where Co- ordinate Bench of this quashed the FIR for the offence under section 304 of IPC in accident where slab on fly over construction undertaken by applicants of that case fall during construction resulting into death of three workers and injury Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13806/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 19/03/2025 undefined sustained by other workers. The court in given facts believed to be construction accident and quashed the FIR. Therefore, this judgment would not avail any assistance to learned advocate for the applicants.
28. In wake of above reasons, this petition sans merits and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier, if any, stands vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Thu Mar 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 20 22:12:49 IST 2025