Madras High Court
P.Sekar vs State Rep. By
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Order Reserved On: 08.04.2022
Order Delivered On: 13.07.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.2806 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.1826 & 1828 of 2019
P.Sekar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Rep. By
The Inspector of Police,
J-5, Sasthri Nagar Police Station,
Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.
2. Mrs. Chellammal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original petition has been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, prayed to call for the records and quash the proceedings in
C.C.No.8782 of 2017 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate
No.IX at Saidapet.
For Petitioner : Mr.Krishnamoorthy
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019
ORDER
This Petition had been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.8782 of 2017 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate - IX, Saidapet, Chennai.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a senior citizen. On the date of alleged occurrence, he is alleged to have requested his servant who was employed by him for maintenance work in his house. The employee climbed on the ladder and attempted to take out a wooden piece from the loft. While climbing down, he missed the steps on the ladder losing his balance and fell down and suffered injuries. Immediately, the other servants who were available in the place, attending to the maintenance work, took the injured to the Government Hospital where he underwent treatment. Inspite of the treatment, he died in the Hospital. Therefore, a case was registered in Cr. No.2210 of 2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, J-5, Sasthri Nagar Police Station, Besant Nagar, Chennai.
2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019 2.1. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the second Respondent in this Petition is the defacto complainant, who is the widow of the deceased and she is not an eyewitness. The FIR was preferred by her based on hearsay information.
2.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Page No.30 of the typed set which is the copy of the Accident Register wherein it had been mentioned as self fall from ladder. 4 feet height. Sustained injury on the head by 5 p.m. On 09.09.2000.
2.3. The learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the Inquest Report which is at page No. 23 of the typed set of papers. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows:
“ ... khiy Rkhh; 5/30 kzpastpy; ,we;Jnghdth;
tPl;il fGtp Rj;jk; bra;Jbfhz;oUe;j nghJ me;j
tPlL; Xdh; nrfh; jdghy; tajhdth; vd;W
bjhpe;jpUe;Jk; mtiu m$hf;fpuijahf Vzpnky; Vwp
yhg;oy; ,Ue;j gpist[l;il vLf;fbrhy;ypa[s;shh;/
jdghy; Vzpnky; Vwp gpist[l;il vLf;ft[k; Vzp
rha;eJ; jdghy; Rth;kJ
P tpGe;jjpy; mtUf;F
jiyapy; gyj;j mogl;L fhJ tHpahf uj;jk;
te;Js;sJ/””
3/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019
2.4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also invited the attention of this Court to Page No. 23 of the typed set of papers which is the statement given by Tirumalai S/o. Damodaran, Police Constable having staff No. 44862 who is related to the wife of the deceased through his mother. The wife of the deceased and the mother of the witness/Police Constable are sisters. Only at the insistence of the witness/police constable, the case has been registered. It is only a pressure tactics to receive money on behalf of the death of the deceased and only to cause harassment to the senior citizen/Petitioner herein.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to quash the complaint.
2.5.It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that it is true that the deceased fell down in the house of the Petitioner while he was attending maintenance work. But only to implicate the Petitioner the words are used as though he had worked for him and the deceased to pick up a wooden piece from the loft. Therefore, he had climbed the ladder. While getting down the ladder, he slipped the steps, thereby losing his control and falling to the ground resulting in which sustained injuries.
3. The learned counsel for the Second Respondent objects to quash the charge sheet and states that what are all argued by the learned counsel for the 4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019 Petitioner can be considered only during trial. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner can be appreciated by the learned trial Judge on cross-examination of witnesses by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is not a fit a case for quashing the charge sheet, it amounts to a violation of guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335:1992 SCC (cri) 426 in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal.
3.1. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) objected to the line of the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner stating that the materials are available regarding the culpability against the Petitioner herein. The witnesses cited in the case were available in the scene of the crime at the relevant point of time, except the defacto complainant. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) objected to quash the charge sheet stating that if the charge sheet is quashed, the Legal Heirs will not be able to claim compensation. Only if there is an FIR, the second Respondent can seek remedy.
5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019
4. In claiming compensation claims regarding death due to the accident, FIR is a must to proceed with the claim of compensation. If the charge sheet in this case is quashed, it will result in miscarriage of justice, thereby, denying the Legal Heirs of the deceased in getting justice, since it is an offence under Section 304 – A of IPC. The second Respondent can claim compensation as per law of this country. In the Motor Accident cases, if the accident had occurred in the Public Place like Road or parking bay, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Here, the site of the accident is in the Petitioner's House. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation or not and whether the labourer was insured are the disputed facts which cannot be gone into at this stage.
5. In the reported ruling cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner in Indian kanoon-http://indiankanoon.org/doc/64438/ in the case of A.K.Janna Vs. State Rep. By the Inspector of Police, S-3, Meenambakkam Police Station, Chennai wherein the one Devendra Kumar died due to accident, he was engaged in scaffolding work related to construction of the flyover near Chennai Airport. In that case, charge sheet was filed against the 6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019 Company/Accused without providing the deceased with any safety equipment had conducted themselves negligently, as a result of which, the deceased had lost his life. Hence, the charge for an offence under Section 304 (A) of IPC. It was held by this Court by no stretch of imagination can the death of the deceased be attributed to the negligence of the Petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore the charge sheet was quashed. In this case, there are materials stating that the Petitioner herein directed the deceased to climb the ladder to pull out the wooden piece. Obeying the order of the Petitioner herein, who is the owner of the house, the deceased had climbed on ladder and pulled out the wooden piece. While getting down, the deceased missed the steps of the ladder, thereby lost his balance, fell down, suffered injuries and subsequently died in the Hospital. Therefore, the said ruling will not help the case of the Petitioner.
6. CDJ 2015 SC 302 in the case of Rajan Vs. Joseph & Others wherein the deceased Ammini who was working as a house maid and died on 15.04.2005 due to electric shock alleged to have sustained by her while working on the washing machine in the house of the Respondents 1 & 2. In 7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019 that the case was initially registered by the Police under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., but after investigation, refer report stating that it was “accidental death”. The Legal Heirs of the Ammini filed a Private Complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and it was taken cognizance under Section 304 (A) of IPC and summons were issued to the Respondents. On receipt of summons, the Respondents approached this Court praying for quashing the case. After hearing the arguments, this Court quashed the charge sheet under Section 304 (A) of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, Legal Heirs of the deceased approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal and at the same time, granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Legal Heirs of the deceased. If that ratio is applied in this case, the Petitioner herein shall pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Legal Heirs of the deceased. Here, the case was not closed as mistake of fact, the case resulted in laying the final report. Where as in the reported case in Kerala, the Investigation Officer had closed the investigation as accidental death. Against which, the family of the deceased had registered a Private Complaint under Section 304 (A) of IPC. Only after recording the statement of witnesses, the learned Judicial 8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019 Magistrate had issued summons to the Accused. Only then, the Accused had filed a Petition to quash the charge sheet. Here, investigation had proceeded resulting in laying of the final report, now the Petitioner seeks to quash the final report.
7. Yet another case reported in CDJ 2016 MHC 4940 in the case of S.Sugumar & Another Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, wherein the Junior Engineer- Trainee, lost his life, pursuant to which, the first Respondent registered an FIR in Cr.No.3912 of 2012 on 26.10.2012 under Section 304-A of IPC on the statement given by one V.Devarajan/second Respondent/defacto complainant, a co-employee and after completing the investigation has filed a final report in C.C.No.284 of 2013 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur under Section 304-A of IPC against Sukumar and Senthamizhchelvan for quashing which, the Accused are before this Court. Particularly, Paragraph Nos.3,4 and 5 read as follows:
“3. Audco India Ltd. manufactures valves which are subjected to cryogenic test by placing the valves in a nitrogen well. Admittedly, the area is a barricaded one and entry into it is prohibited. Karuppasamy joined Audco India Ltd. as a Junior Engineer- Trainee and it is alleged that on 26.10.2012, he went 9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019 inside the barricaded portion, slipped and fell into the well and inhaled nitrogen. On hearing his cries, Devarajan and others tried to rescue him from the well, but, in vain. During his attempt to save the life of Karuppasamy, Devarajan also inhaled nitrogen and was admitted to hospital, but, fortunately he survived. On the complaint given by Devarajan, the FIR was registered, as aforestated.
4. Concededly, the Management of Audco India Ltd. has paid a sum of Rs.22 lakhs by way of compensation to the parents of the deceased Karuppasamy. It is also beyond cavil that the petitioners are employees of Audco India Ltd and they were working in night shift on the previous day. The allegation against them is that they failed to close the nitrogen valve, which had resulted in the death of Karuppasamy. Hence, they are charged for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the allegations in the final report are accepted, yet, the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. He contended that even if it is admitted that the petitioners had failed to close the nitrogen valve on the previous night while they were on shift duty, yet, that was not the reason that resulted in the death of Karuppasamy.”
8. In that case, during enquiry before this Court, on behalf of the Accused/Company had paid Rs.22,00,000/- for the death of trainee-Junior 10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019 Engineer. While so, a criminal case was filed against the Management. Therefore, it was an abuse of process of law. Here in this case, no compensation had been paid. In the absence of payment of any compensation, if the charge sheet is quashed, the Legal Heirs of the deceased will not get any compensation.
9. As rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that there are materials to be considered during trial whether the negligence of the Petitioner or negligence of the aged person who climbed on the ladder and pulled out the wooden piece is to be the cause of the death of the deceased. If he had not directed him to climb the ladder, he would not have climbed the ladder and fell down resulting in his injury and subsequently leading to his death. Therefore, what had been stated in the reported ruling as “causa causans” is not found in favour of the Petitioner in this case.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
13.07.2022 11/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019 dh Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order To
1. The Inspector of Police, J-5, Sasthri Nagar Police Station, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 090.
2. Metropolitan Magistrate No.IX, Saidapet, Chennai.
12/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No.2806 of 2019 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP.,J.
dh Pre-delivery Order in Crl.O.P.No.2806 of 2019 13.07.2022 13/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis