Allowed¶54

Guru Rajkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jun 2025CRMP/732/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CGHC Bilaspur, CRMP No. 732 of 2023, decided 19/06/2025 (Ramesh Sinha, CJ; Bibhu Datta Guru, J) — NAFR: Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. allowed; FIR 459/2022 PS BALCO Korba, charge-sheet and C.C. 3634/2022 (JMFC Korba) quashed; S.304A IPC allegations against BALCO officials for death of contractor's driver rejected — no vicarious liability absent statutory provision; Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala (2007) 14 SCC 269 relied on; prior Factories Act fines (Rs. 1,00,000/- x2) and compensation (approx. Rs. 10,00,000/-) noted.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR dated 05/08/2022 bearing Crime No. 459/2022 registered at Police Station BALCO, District Korba (C.G.), the entire charge-sheet, and the criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 3634/2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba. ¶54

Guru Rajkumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 05/08/2022 (Crime No. 459/2022, PS BALCO, Korba), the entire charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3634/2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba deserve to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Considering the well-settled propositions of law, the CRMP is allowed: the FIR dated 05/08/2022 (Crime No. 459/2022, PS BALCO, Korba), the entire charge-sheet, and the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3634/2022 before the JMFC, Korba are quashed.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution must first prove negligence and then establish a direct nexus between the negligence of the accused and the death of the victim.

¶53

Key takeaways

There is no vicarious liability in criminal jurisprudence unless a statute specifically provides for it, which is conspicuously lacking in the IPC; therefore the applicant-officials of BALCO cannot be held vicariously liable for the offence.ratio¶53
The applicants, employees of BALCO holding higher posts who bona fide gave information about the incident and were made accused after four years, cannot be attributed the offence under Section 304A IPC for any rash or negligent act.ratio¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — S.482 Cr.P.C. — S.304A IPC — vicarious liability — industrial accident. The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed CRMP No. 732 of 2023 and quashed the FIR dated 05/08/2022 (Crime No. 459/2022, PS BALCO, Korba), the entire charge-sheet, and criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3634/2022 (JMFC, Korba) against three BALCO officials (Assistant Manager Alumina Handling, Safety Officer Potline, General Manager Potline) arising from the death of Dhirendra Kumar Shandilya, a driver employed by contractor United Fright Carriers, who allegedly fell from a Capsule Bulkar and died of head injuries (incident 22.11.2018; FIR lodged 05.08.2022, i.e., about four years later). Held: (i) the prosecution must first prove negligence and then establish a direct nexus between the accused's negligence and the death; (ii) there is no vicarious liability in criminal jurisprudence unless a statute specifically provides for it, which is conspicuously lacking in the IPC; (iii) the applicants, BALCO employees holding higher posts who bona fide gave information about the incident, cannot be attributed the offence under Section 304A IPC. Reliance placed on Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala (2007) 14 SCC 269 (paras 5–8). Background facts noted: BALCO's Factory Manager and Factory Occupier had earlier been prosecuted and punished under Section 92, Factories Act 1948, with fines of Rs. 1,00,000/- each; the deceased's family had received compensation of approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- from the employer-contractor.

¶1

¶2

RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.06.19 18:29:16 +0530

¶3

2025:CGHC:25757-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRMP No. 732 of 2023

¶7

1 - Guru Rajkumar S/o Thirugnanasampathan Aged About 35 Years R/o Quarter No. 186, Type B, Sector - 2, BALCO, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (At The Relevant Time Was Working As Assistant Manager Alumina Handling), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Satyendra Lodhi S/o Ram Kumar Lodhi Aged About 39 Years R/o Quarter No. 208/ B/ 2 BALCO, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (At The Relevant Time Was Working As Assistant Manager Safety).

¶9

3 - Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Raj Narayan Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o D/8, Sector - 2 BALCO Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (At The Relevant Time Was Working As General Manager Potline)

¶10

applicant(s)

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station BALCO, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶13

2 - Shahrukh Khan S/o Samser Khan R/o Housing Board Colony, Gupta Chawl, Police Station BALCO, District Korba, Chhattigarh. Complainant/ Accused No. 1.

¶14

3 - Gourav Raj S/o Gopal Sharma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Milki , Post Teyar, District Nawada (Bihar) At Present R/o Shanti Nagar BALCO, Korba, District Kobra, Chhattisgarh. Respondent/ Accused No. 4...

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For applicant(s)	: Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Adv.
For State	: Mr. Hariom Rai, PL
For Respondent No.2	; Mr. Mirza Kesar Baig, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate

¶18

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶20

Order on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 19/06/2025

¶22

By the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the applicants are seeking quashment of FIR dated 05/08/2022 bearing Crime No. 459/2022 registered at police Station BALCO, District Korba (C.G.), the entire charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 3634/2022 pending before the Judicial magistrate First Class, Korba.

¶23

(a) Facts of the case in the nutshell are that applicant No.1, Guru Rajkumar is a chemical engineer and at the relevant time, he was posted as Associate Manager Alumina Handling BALCO, Korba, District Korba (C.G.). Applicant No. 2 Satyendra Lodhi was holding the Diploma in Industrial Safety and at the relevant time, he was posted as Safety Officer Potline. Applicant No. 3 Rajesh Kumar Singh is a Metallurgy Engineer and he was posted at the relevant time as General Manager Potline. They are the accused in Crime No. 459/2022.

¶24

(b) The FIR of the incident has been lodged on 05.08.2022 in respect of the incident alleged to have been took place on 22.11.2018. It was lodged by respondent No.2 namely Shahrukh Khan/accused No.1 who was the employee of the contractor and was appointed as Supervisor by the contractor. The FIR was lodged inter-alia on the allegations that, the deceased Dhirendra Kumar Shandilya who was working as driver of

¶25

¶26

Capsule Bulkar Vehicle bearing No. MP22H/2201 and was the employee of contractor namely United Fright Carriers, died due to certain head injuries. It has been alleged that on the date of incident that the deceased was on night duty and at near about 03:30 in the morning one Manoj Singh, Dhurve another driver of the contractor has intimated that the deceased Dhirendra Bulkar driver is lying on floor. He was taken to the hospital, but he could not succumbed by the head injuries sustained by him. It has been alleged that, deceased fall from the vehicle while opening the lead of the bulker.

¶27

(c) The police has investigated the matter and recorded the statement of the co-employees, the supervisor of KCG Company, the drivers and filed the charge sheet against the present applicants. The incident occurred on 22.11.2018 and the employees of the BALCO namely Deepak Prasad who was Factory Manager and Vikas Sharma who was Factory Occupier were prosecuted and punished under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed for violation of Section 41 of the Factories Act read with Rule 73(e) of the Factories Rules and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded for violation of Section 7A(1) of the Factories Act, 1948.

¶28

(d) According to the case of the applicants, for the same violation as alleged in the FIR, two employees of the BALCO have already been prosecuted in holding that the deceased was working without safety belt and other safety equipment's, due to which the accident occurred and employee died due to the injuries sustained by him. Once two employees

¶29

¶30

of BALCO have already been held responsible for the said incident, the present FIR against the other employees to whom no specific role has been attributed, cannot be sustained. The Family members of the deceased employee have already been awarded the compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- (approximately) which has been paid by the employer i.e. United Fright Carrier. The deceased was the employee of the contractor and it was the contractor who was supposed to provide the safety belt as well as other safety equipment's to its employee and for which the BALCO employees cannot be held responsible, only because they were working and posted at the particular place. The applicants follows all the safety measures and norms and government guidelines for the safety of their employees. The deceased was the employee of the contractor and was working under the Supervisor i.e. the accused No.1 Shahrukh Khan who was also appointed by the contractor. The Safety belt as well as the other safety equipment's were supposed to be supplied by the contractor and Supervisor of the contractor was also duty bound to ensure the safety of the employees of the contractor.

¶31

Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that applicants are officers of BALCO and on 12.11.2018 one Dhirendra Kumar Shandilya, who was working as driver of Capsule Bulkar at Almuna Handling Plant No.2 BALCO died in the and after the incident, the Proceedings under Factories Act were initiated and compensation according to the law was awarded and thereafter report was lodged on 05.08.2022. He contended that deceased while working in the plant fall from the vehicle and

¶32

¶33

sustained head injuries and succumbed to the injuries for which applicants, who are working in the office holding the higher post can not be held liable for rash and negligent act in any manner. Therefore, the allegation of commission of offence under Section 304A of I.P.C. can not be attributed to the applicants. Learned counsel would submit that the applicants have been made an accused in the case after 4 years of the incident. Learned counsel would submit that the applicants are the employees of the BALCO and they bona-fidely gave the information about the incident. However, they have been made as an accused in the case. Thus, the impugned FIR; charge-sheet; and the criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed.

¶34

Learned counsel for the State would oppose the aforesaid submission and after finding the prima-facie case against the applicants, the FIR has been registered and after due investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed before the competent court who, in turn, after considering all the aspects of the matter, initiated the criminal proceeding. Thus, the applicants are not entitle for any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 & 3, who are the proforma parties in the petition have adopted the arguments advanced by the applicants.

¶36

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

¶37

Bare perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the

¶38

¶39

applicants are officers of BALCO. An accident occurred on 12.11.2018 at Almuna Handling Plant No.2 BALCO and one Dhirendra Kumar Shandilya, who was working as driver of Capsule Bulkar died. After the incident, the Proceedings under Factories Act were initiated and compensation was awarded and thereafter report was lodged on 05.08.2022. It is also evident that deceased while working in the plant fall from the vehicle and sustained head injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

¶40

It is also evident that the applicants have been made an accused in the case after 4 years of the incident. The incident occurred on 22/11/2018, whereas the FIR has been lodged on 05/08/2022. In fact, the applicants are the employees of the BALCO and they bona-fidely gave the information about the incident. Therefore, the allegation of commission of offence under Section 304A of I.P.C. can not be attributed to the applicants who are working in the office holding the higher post in the BALCO, for rash and negligent act in any manner.

¶41

The Supreme Court in the In the matter of Prabhakaran vs State of Kerala¹ " , the Supreme Court held in paras 5 to 8 as under:-

¶42

"5. Section 304A speaks of causing death by negligence. This section applies to rash and negligent acts and does not apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused. This section obviously does not apply to cases where there is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will in all probability cause death. It only applies to cases in which without any such intention or knowledge death is

¶43

1 (2007) 14 SCC 269

¶44

¶45

caused by what is described as a rash and negligent act.

¶46

6. A negligent act is an act done without doing something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genes, of which that in rashness the action is done precipitately that the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a hope that they will not. Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 at p.583: 2 All E.R. 552) observed as under:

¶47

"Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough. For purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence, and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established. Probably of all the epithets that can be applied 'reckless' most nearly covers the case. It is difficult to visualize a case of death caused by 'reckless' driving, in the connotation of that term in ordinary speech, which would not justify a conviction for manslaughter, but it is probably not all embracing, for 'reckless' suggests an indifference to risk, whereas the accused may have appreciated the risk, and intended to avoid it, and yet shown in the means adopted to avoid the risk such a high degree of negligence as would justify a conviction."

¶48

7. Section 304-A applies to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all probability will cause death. The provision is directed at offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The provision applies only to such acts which are rash and

¶49

¶50

negligent and are directly cause of death of another person. Negligence and rashness are essential elements under Section 304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and degree of negligence are determining factors. A question whether the accused's conduct amounted to culpable rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would probably be caused.

¶51

8. As noted above, 'Rashness' consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a case in running the risk of doing such an act with recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which, having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted."

¶52

¶53

For bringing home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to firstly prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim. It is the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the statute specifically provides for it, which is conspicuously lacking in the IPC. Thus, applicants, who are the officials of the BALCO, cannot be held vicariously liable for an offence since mens rea can be attributed to them, unless deeming statutory provisions for the same are provided in the relevant statute.

¶54

Considering the well settled prepositions of law, this CRMP is allowed . Hence, the FIR dated 05/08/2022 bearing Crime No. 459/2022 registered at police Station BALCO, District Korba (C.G.); the entire charge-sheet; and the criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 3634/2022 pending before the Judicial magistrate First Class, Korba are quashed.

¶55

Sd/Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶56

Rahul/Gowri

Guru Rajkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guru Rajkumar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Prasad Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Temna @ Karamsai Majhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Tuleshwar Singh Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Phool Singh Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Karse Vs State of Chhattisgarh