Dismissed

Smt. Madhuri Patel v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Apr 2021WPCR/197/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and charge-sheet for negligence offences. The court held that issues of gross negligence and entitlement to sanction under Section 197 CrPC are factual questions for the trial court to decide during the evidence stage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition for quashment of FIR and charge-sheet was dismissed allowing trial to proceed.

Smt. Madhuri Patel Vs The State Of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (Cr.) No.197 of 2015

¶4

Order reserved on :4.2.2021

¶5

Order delivered on:5.4.2021

¶6

Smt.Madhuri Patel wife of Shri Ganesh Ram Patel,
aged about 37 years (Govt.Employee), Junior
Engineer, CSEB, posted at CSPDCL office, Hardibazar,
Korba) R/o-CSPDCL office Hardibazar, Police Chowki-
Hardibazar, P.S.-Kusmunda, Tahsil – Pali, Civil and
Revenue District – Korba (CG)

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur (CG)

¶10

2. The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Police, Naya Raipur (CG)

¶11

3. The Collector, Korba, Civil and Revenue DistrictKorba (CG)

¶12

4. The Superintendent of Police, Korba, Civil and Revenue District-Korba (CG)

¶13

5. The Officer in Charge of Police Station-Kusmunda, OP Hardibazar, Civil and Revenue District-Korba (CG)

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner :Mr.Roop Naik, Advocate
For Respondents/State :Mr.Ravi Bhagat, Dy.G.A.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶17

C.A.V. Order

¶18

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks
quashment of FIR No.79/2015 registered at Police
Station-Kusmunda, Out Post-Hardibazar, District
Korba for offences punishable under Sections 287,

¶19

¶20

337 and 304A of the IPC and also seeks quashment of
charge-sheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Pali, District-Korba in Criminal Case
No.133/2015 for the aforesaid offences.

¶21

2. The petitioner herein is Junior Engineer working in
the office of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution
Company Limited (for short 'CSPDCL'), Hardibazar,
District Korba. On 15.4.2015, FIR No.79/2015 has
been registered at Police Station-Kusmunda for the
aforesaid offences against the petitioner. As per
prosecution case, on 10.4.2015 at 3.45 p.m. one
Reshamlal Anant (since deceased) received electric
burn injuries when he was connecting electricity
line in transformer situated at village Bhathora,
District-Korba, he was immediately hospitalized at
District Hospital, Korba and thereafter on the same
day, referred to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur where he
succumbed to the injuries and died on 15.4.2015 at
4.50 p.m. On the same day, Mr.Ashwani Kumar Anant,
son of the deceased, lodged a written complaint
alleging that deceased Reshemlal Anant had been
working as electrician for 20 years under the
contractor of Electricity Department, however, the
service of deceased Reshamlal Anant was being taken
by the petitioner for last four months as on the

¶22

¶23

date of incident the deceased was directed by the
petitioner to connect electricity line without any
safety instruments and equipments and due to
negligence of the petitioner, deceased Reshamlal
Anant suffered electric burn injuries and died. It
is also alleged in the FIR that the petitioner is
wholly responsible for the aforesaid incident and
after due investigation, the respondent-police has
submitted charge-sheet before learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Pali and the trial is in
progress.

¶24

3. Now this writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner on the ground that even if taking the
allegations made in the FIR at their face value and
accepted in their entirety, allegations do not
prima-facie constitute any offence against the
petitioner particularly offence under Section 304A
of the IPC. It has also been stated that the
petitioner is Government servant within the meaning
of Section 197 of the CrPC and without prior
permission from the appropriate Government/State
Government under Section 197 of the CrPC, the

¶25

petitioner could not have been charge-sheeted and
cognizance of the offence cannot be taken against
the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, as such,

¶26

¶27

FIR and consequent charge-sheet filed against the

¶28

petitioner deserve to be quashed.

¶29

4. The State has filed its return opposing the
averments made in the writ petition stating inter-
alia that after investigation charge-sheet has been
filed against the petitioner and question of
sanction is a question of fact and it can be
determined only after the evidence is recorded and
prayer for quashment of FIR and charge-sheet at this
stage for want of sanction is not tenable and thus,
the present writ petition is not maintainable at
this stage. It has also been submitted that prima-
facie case is made out against the petitioner for
the aforesaid offences and it is not the case where
extraordinary jurisdiction can be exercised in
favour of the petitioner by quashing the FIR and
consequent charge-sheet, as such, the writ petition
deserves to be dismissed. Rejoinder has been filed
by the petitioner.

¶30

5. Mr.Roop Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is Government employee and was discharging of his official duty at the time of incident and the respondent-State has not taken any sanction for prosecution from the State Government and as such, protection under

¶31

¶32

Section 197 of the CrPC is available and applicable
at this stage. He would further submit that death of
the deceased must be direct result of negligence on
the part of the petitioner as the prosecution has
failed to produce the material stating that death of
Reshamlal Anant was on account of gross negligence
on the part of the petitioner. In order to support
his case, he would rely upon the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the matters of Syad Akbar v. State
of Karnataka1 and S.N. Hussain v. The State of

¶33

Andhra Pradesh2.

¶34

6. Per contra, Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned Deputy
Government Advocate for the respondents/State, would
support the prosecution and submit that question of
sanction is a question of fact and it can be
determined during the course of trial. He would
further submit that the petitioner has not raised
such question before the trial Court and therefore,
she cannot be allowed to be raised this point for
first time before this Court. He would also submit

¶35

that statements under Section 161 CrPC and other
documents filed along with writ petition clearly
demonstrate that it is the case of gross negligence
on the part of the petitioner and on account of

¶36

1 (1980 1 SCC 30

¶37

2 (1972) 3 SCC 18

¶38

¶39

which, Reshamlal Mahant suffered electric burn
injuries and died, as such, it is not the case where
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India can be exercised by this Court
for quashment of FIR and charge-sheet.

¶40

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, considered their rival submissions made
hereinabove and also went through the records with
utmost circumspection.

¶41

8. It is apparent on the face of record that on
10.4.2015 at 3.45 p.m. deceased Reshamlal Anant
suffered electric burn injuries while he was
connecting electricity in transformer at village
Bhathora, he was taken to District Hospital, Korba,
admitted therein and on the same day, referred to
Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur and thereafter on
15.4.1015 he succumbed to the injuries and died. It
is also apparent on the face of record that the
deceased was not employee of the CSPDCL at the
relevant date of incident, but it appears from the
statements of prosecution witnesses namely Lagin
Bai, wife of deceased Reshamlal Anant, Priti Anant,
daughter of deceased Reshamlal Anant and Anant
Kumar, son of deceased Reshamlal Anant that deceased
Reshamlal Anant was called by the petitioner on duty

¶42

¶43

on said date and directed him to connect electricity
line in transformer situated at village Bhathora,
Bhilai Bazar. Apart from this, Anil Kumar Maravi,
who is helper in CSEB, Sub-Station Bhilai Bazar, has
also stated in Section 161 CrPC statement that the
deceased informed him that the petitioner had
directed him to connect electricity line. Similar
statement has been made by Akhilesh Kumar, who is
also employee of Sub-Station CSEB Hardibazar, as
such, it is apparent on record that at the relevant
point of time on the instructions of the petitioner,
the deceased went to village-Bhathora to connect
electricity line in transformer situated at village
Bhathora and suffered electric burn injuries and
succumbed to death.

¶44

9. The question as to whether the petitioner was gross negligent or not in death of Reshamlal for the purpose of Section 304A of the IPC, is a matter to be considered during the course of trial on the basis of evidence on record. At this stage even before framing of charges on the basis of material available on record, it cannot be held that there is no evidence on record against the petitioner to connect him in the aforesaid offences including offence under Section 304A of the IPC.

¶45

¶46

10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Syad Akbar (supra) has held that where negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not negligence merely based upon an error of judgment.

¶47

11. As such, the question of gross negligence, if

¶48

any, on the part of the petitioner has to be
established by the prosecution during the course of
the trial. As such, taking the entire material
available on record, it cannot be held that no
offence under Section 304A, 287 and 337 of the IPC
is made out against the petitioner.

¶49

12. Similarly, the petitioner is claiming that she is entitled for protection against prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC. Section 197 of the CrPC is applicable only to such public servant who are not removable without the sanction of the State Government or the Central Government. In this regard, reference may be made to Nagraj v. State of Mysore 3.

¶50

13. Apart from this, question of sanction is a question of fact. The petitioner has not raised any such question based on Section 197 of the CrPC

¶51

3 AIR 1964 SC 269

¶52

¶53

before the trial Court and even no document has been
filed along with petition demonstrating that she is
in fact appointed by the State Government to attract
Section 197 of the CrPC, therefore, issue of
sanction cannot be competently gone into in this
petition, as such, the petitioner is at liberty to
raise such a plea before the trial Court in pending
trial and it will be considered by the trial Court
in accordance with law at appropriate stage, as
such, I do not consider it is a fit case for
interdicting FIR and consequent proceeding against
the petitioner.

¶54

14.With the aforesaid observation, the writ
petition is dismissed.

¶55

 (Sanjay K. Agrawal)
 Judge

¶56

B/-

Smt. Madhuri Patel v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madhuri Patel v. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nain Sahu Vs Surooj Bai Thakur and Others

Manoj Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sanjay Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khageshwar Ram Vs Ahilya Bai And Ors.

Chintaram Chandrakar Vs Dr. Laxmikant Dwivedi and Others

Satyanarayan Agrawal Vs State of Chhattisgarh