Karnataka High Court
Smt Shipra Tayal vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK G. NIJAGANNAVAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.26932 & 27993/2014
(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHIPRA TAYAL
W/O ALOK TAYAL
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
APT. NO.N 505, PURVA PANORAMA
KALENA AGARAHARA
B.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560076.
2. MR. ALOK TAYAL
S/O M.M TAYAL
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
APT. NO.N 505, PURVA PANORAMA
KALENA AGARAHARA
B.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560076. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.PRABHULING NAVADGA SENIOR ADV.A/W
SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR H.V., ADV)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HULIMAVU POLICE STATION
MICO LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU-560083.
2
2. ANURADHA CHANDRASHEKARAN
WIFE OF LATE THIYAGARAJAN
AGED MAJOR
RESIDING AT APT N 410
PURVA PANORAMA KALENA AGARAHARA
B.G. ROAD
BENGALURU- 560076. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.P.YOGANNA, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. M. VINAYAKEERTHY, ADV. FOR R2)
****
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER
ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE, 1973. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
FIR REGISTERED BY THE HULIMAVU POLICE STATION,
DTD.14.5.2014 BEARING CRIME.NO.0329/2014 VIDE
ANNEX-A REGISTERED BY THE R-1 IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have sought for quashing the impugned FIR in Crime No.0329/2014 registered at Hulimavu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 34, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The counsel for the respondent No.2 is absent. As such, this Court had no opportunity to hear the submissions of the counsel for the respondent No.2. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The facts leading to this petition are that on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2 - complainant Smt. Anuradha Chandrashekaran, w/o late Mr.Thiyagarajan a criminal case was registered at Hulimavu police station for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 34, 337 and 338 of IPC. The allegations are that the complainant was residing in apartment No.N410, Purva Panorama, Kalena Agrahara, B G Road, Bengaluru along with her husband, mother and a six months old daughter. On 26.04.2014, night at about 2.00 a.m. there was a fire accident in the basement due to bursting of REVA car belonging to the petitioner. As a result of this fire accident her husband, 4 mother and her daughter suffered extreme smoke inhalation. Later her husband and mother expired on account of the injuries caused due to smoke inhalation.
4. According to the complainant the fire accident was due to the rash and negligent circumstances listed below:
1. Purva Panorama association not setting up right fire security measures. Due to painting, the associator turned off fire equipment but did not set up alternate procedures.
2. Reva car owner (Alok Tayal, KA 05 MN 9571) did not follow instructions not to park during the maintenance i.e. when apartment building painting work was taken up.
3. Disorganized security officials who were not trained to handle evacuation.5
4. Mahindra car company for potential faulty installation of charging panels next to the DG set.
5. During the course of arguments the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously contended that the petitioner No.2 who is the registered owner of the REVA car was not at all responsible for the alleged fire accident that happened in the basement of the apartment. There is no direct nexus between the accident and the injuries sustained by the complaint's husband, mother and her daughter. The alleged fire accident was in the midnight at about 2 a.m. There is no allegation against the petitioner No.2 that on account of his negligence the fire accident was caused. Thus the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the unfortunate fire accident.
6. In support of his contention the learned Senior counsel has relied on two decisions reported in 6 1972 Crl.L.J. 727 (Ambalal D Bhatt vs. The State of Gujarat) and ILR 2003 KAR 4849 (Dalith Singh Ghai and another vs. State of Karnataka by The Station House Officer, Wadi Police Station, Gulbarga District).
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner who is the owner of the REVA car which is the main cause for the fire accident. As such, there are no valid grounds to quash the proceedings as the police have to conduct the investigation and collect the necessary evidence to know the cause of the disaster and the tragic accident that happened in the apartment.
8. As could be seen from the complaint averments the fire accident was in the midnight at about 2 a.m. Due to this fire accident there was an 7 extreme smoke inhalation by the complainant's husband, mother and her small baby. At this stage there is no material to show that the electric cars namely, the REVA cars should always be parked in the open space or they should not be parked in a close basement areas. The averments made in the complaint discloses that on the night of the fire accident the fire extinguishing apparatus were taken away as the painting work was going on in the apartment and in order to carry out the painting work the paint materials were also stored in the basement of that apartment. All these contributory factors have led to this unfortunate accident. But, there is no iota of evidence to show that only on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioner and the wrongful acts committed by him, the alleged fire accident took place in the apartment. Mere parking of the REVA car in the basement will be the remote chance of making any apprehension that it may lead to the fire accident and result in injuries to the 8 inmates of the apartment. In a decision reported in 1972 Crl.L.J. 727 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
" Penal Code (1860), Sec.304-A -
Applicability -Act causing the death must be the causa causans.
In a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of a rash or negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death. The act causing the deaths "must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non." Case law discussed."
9. In view of the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision it is necessary that the basic ingredient to constitute an offence, there must be an act or omission on the part of the petitioner as defined 9 under Section 36 of the Act, but for the purpose of Section 304 A of IPC there must be rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioner, but no such allegations are forthcoming against the petitioner No.2. Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner No.2 by filing FIR cannot be sustained. In so far as the first petitioner is concerned, there are no specific allegations about her involvement in commission of any wrongful acts. Therefore, the relief claimed by petitioner No.1 is not tenable.
10. In the above circumstances, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Petition is partly allowed. FIR in Crime No.0329/2014 registered at Hulimavu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 34, 337 and 338 of IPC is 10 quashed in so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned who is said to be the registered owner of the car.
It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the dependants of the deceased victim namely, the complainant and her daughter have filed petitions claiming compensation before the MACT. Thus, the finding given in this petition shall not create any embargo on the Tribunal to consider the claim petition independently.
Sd/-
JUDGE ykl