Allowed

L Balasubramaniam v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2012CRL.P/1400/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 304-A IPC against two Johnson Lifts employees accused of causing an accident resulting in a coworker's death. The court found insufficient material to establish petitioner negligence and noted the company made substantial ex gratia payments.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Criminal Proceedings C.C. No. 23678/2011 quashed; Ex gratia payments of Rs. 2,51,539/- and Rs. 4,70,000/- granted to family.

L Balasubramaniam Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2012

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1400/2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

L BALASUBRAMANIAM S/O A LAKSHAMANA PILIAI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,R/AT 19/2, 4TH MAIN, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-32, WORKING AS MANAGER AND BRANCH HEAD M/S JOHNSON LIFTS AND ESCALATORS PVT. LTD., NO.521/24, GARRUTHAMAN PARK ROAD, 2ND CROSS, JAYANAGAR II BLOCK, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-04.

¶9

S ANAND S/O SRINIVASAN, AGED 32 YEARS, R/AT No.9, 2ND CROSS, RAMAPPA LAYOUT, PUTTENAHALLI, J.P.NAGAR 7TH STAGE, BANGALORE-78 WORKING AS ENGINEER, SERVICE & MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT, M/S JOHNSON LIFTS & ESCALATORS PVT LTD. 521/24, GARRUTHAMAN PARK ROAD, 2ND CROSS, JAYANAGAR II BLOCK, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE – 04.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

¶12

(By Sri : M N NEHRU & ASSOCIATES, ADVs.,)

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY.

¶15

SMT K AMUTHA W/O LATE KARTHIK RAJAN M AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.781/4, SHETTY HALLI, JALAHALLI WEST, BANGALORE 560015 ... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(By Sri.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, HCGP., FOR R1 SRI G. ARUN, ADV., FOR R2)

¶17

CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE CHARGE-SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.23678/2011 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.32/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE - A, B AND C OF RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE STATION (HIGH GROUND POLICE STATION) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioners – accused Nos.1 and 2 have called in question the proceedings in C.C. No.23678/2011 pending on

¶21

¶22

the file of the VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, arising out of Crime No.32/2011 registered by High Ground Police, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Charge sheet is filed against the petitioners for the said offence. At this stage, the petitioners have filed this petition seeking for quashing of the proceedings.

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased M.Karthika Rajan was working as a Mechanic in the service and maintenance department of M/s. Johnson Lifts private limited. On 19.02.2011, the said Karthika Rajan had gone to attend the maintenance work of the lift at Mahaveer Jain Hospital and while carrying out the repair, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. It is alleged that petitioners 1 and 2, being the Branch Manager and Engineer, are responsible for the accident that had occurred resulting in the death of the said Karthika Rajan.

¶24

¶25

Police, on the basis of the complaint given by the wife of the deceased Karthika Rajan, registered the case in Crime No.32/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A against these two petitioners and further, on investigation has filed the chargesheet.

¶26

4. During the course of investigation, Police recorded

¶27

the statement of the co-worker, who was present was present with the deceased Karthika Rajan. In his statement, he has stated that they were entrusted with the work of repair of lift at Mahaveer Jain Hospital and Karthika Rajan was not having the helmet and waist belt and other safety equipments. However, in the same statement, he has stated that the Company conducts weekly safety measures meeting and also has provided necessary safety equipments. From the material collected by the Police, it is not clear as to whether the safety equipment provided by the company was utilized by the deceased or not. Even the chargesheet does not show that other person had witnessed the incident

¶28

¶29

except a coworker. Coworker admits that the Company has provided all the safety measures.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader has filed the

¶31

objections.

¶32

In order to attract the provisions of Section 304-A of IPC., death must be the direct result of rash and negligent act of the accused and there must be sufficient cause without intervention of another negligence. The material collected by the Police – Investigating Officer during the course of investigation also does not reveal that the accident had occurred on account of negligence on the part of the accused or that there was lapse on the part of the accused in providing the safety equipments. If the deceased fell while carrying out the repair of the lift due to his own negligence, in such case, the provisions of Section 304-A of IPC., may not attract. But, there is no clear statement of any witness as to how the incident occurred. Merely because the petitioners

¶33

¶34

are officers of the Company, automatically, they cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC.

¶35

However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a gesture of good will for the loss of life of the employee, Company has paid an amount of Rs.8,40,000/ex gratia payment apart from all the statutory benefits like gratuity, provident fund and other service benefits.

¶36

Today, wife and mother of the deceased are given demand drafts for Rs.2,51,539/- and Rs.4,70,000/respectively. Since the daughter is a minor, amount of Rs.1,00,000/-has been kept in her name in a Fixed Deposit till she attains majority. Fixed Deposit receipt and two Demand Drafts are handed over to the wife and mother of the deceased.

¶37

Complainant – wife is represented by counsel Sri

¶38

¶39

Arun G. He admits receipt of the Demand Drafts and Fixed Deposit receipt.

¶40

Considering these circumstances and also

¶41

considering the evidence on record, I find that, no purpose would be served in continuing the proceedings as the material does not disclose the commission of offences by the petitioners.

¶42

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is placed on record. Proceedings in C.C. No.23678/2011 on the file of the VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, stand quashed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

sma

L Balasubramaniam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L Balasubramaniam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vhf Selvi Farm Developer Vs Sri K Srinivas

T v Krishnappa Vs G N Gowda

Chandan @ Happala Vs State of Karnataka

Saleem Pasha @ Saleem @ Padri Vs State of Karnataka

Zabeer Baig Vs Smt. Najiya Anjum

K Surendra S/O K Nagappa Vs the State of Karnataka