Allowed

V.Ganesh v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 Mar 2015CRL OP/25059/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 304-A IPC against a tenant who had engaged a contractor to clean a septic tank. The court held that the contractor, not the tenant, was responsible for providing safety measures to his employees and that the petitioner was not negligent.

What did the court decide?

Criminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings under Section 304-A IPC is allowed.

V.Ganesh Vs the Inspector of Police — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:12.03.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.RAMANATHAN

¶5

V. Ganesh .. Petitioner/Accused Vs.

¶6

State rep. By The Inspector of Police S-12, Chitlalpakkam Police Station, Chennai – 600 064. .. Respondent/Complainant

¶7

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and quash the proceedings in C.C.No.457 of 2009 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, for an offence under Section 304-A, IPC.

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s. K. Surendar For Respondent : Mr.M. Maharaja Addl. Public Prosecutor. ORDER

¶9

The petitioner has been chargesheeted for offence u/s. 304-A, IPC on the file of C.C.No.457 of 2009 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram and this petition is liable to be quashed.

¶10

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the prosecution, the petitioner is the tenant of the premises and he contacted one E.V.Sampath, who is engaged in the cleaning of septic tank and the said E.V.Sampath sent his two employees to clean the septic tank of the premises in which the petitioner was the tenant and when those two persons went into the septic tank, they died due to the leakage of the poisonous gas from the septic tank. Consequently, the petitioner and contractor, E.V.Sampath were chargesheeted and later, contractor was discharged from the chargesheet u/s 304 - A IPC. He further submitted that as per the chargesheet, the petitioner failed to provide necessary safety apparatus to the deceased persons before they were allowed to enter into the septic tank for the purpose of cleaning it and on that ground, the petitioner was chargesheeted.

¶11

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that all the witnesses have stated during investigation that E.V.Sampath is doing the operation of cleaning of septic tank by engaging employees under him and when he was contacted by the petitioner, he sent two employees to clean the septic tank of the petitioner. As a contractor, it was the duty of the said E.V.Sampath to provide all the safety apparatus to the employees while they were sent for cleaning septic tank and the petitioner cannot be expected to provide safety apparatus and therefore, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the offence u/s. 304 - A IPC.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶14

I have gone through the materials available on record and perused the same.

¶15

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that being the tenant of the premises and having called those persons to clean the septic tank, the petitioner ought to have verified whether those two persons were having the safety apparatus before allowing them to enter the septic tank and having failed to verify the same, case was filed against the petitioner.

¶16

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. I have also gone through the statement of witnesses and it is admitted that the petitioner engaged one E.V.Sampath for cleaning the septic tank and it is also admitted that the deceased were employed by E.V.Sampath and they were doing the job of cleaning septic tank and therefore, it is his duty to provide all the safety measures before allowing his employee to do the cleaning work in the septic tank and the person who engaged them for services cannot be expected to provide the safety measures to the persons who were asked to clean the septic tank.

¶17

As a matter of fact, the First Information Report was rightly registered against E.V.Sampath, but for the reason best known to the prosecution the said E.V.Sampath was relieved while filing chargesheet. According to me, the proper person to be prosecuted is E.V.Sampath. Hence, there is no negligence on the part of the petitioner, much less wilful negligence and hence, prosecution against the petitioner is quashed and petition is allowed.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

In the result, the criminal original petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶20

-s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
Dt:31/3/2015
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Inspector of Police
S-12, Chitlalpakkam Police Station,
Chennai – 600 064.
2. The Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+ 1 cc to Mr.K.Surendar, Advocate SR 14152
gr(co)
prk1/4
CRL.O.P.No.25059 of 2009
and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Ganesh v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ganesh v. the Inspector of Police

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

Prabu Vs the Inspector of Police

Prabhu Vs State Rep by

V.Vijayaragavan Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Chandrasekaran Vs D.Gopal

Tmt.Sridevi Vs Government of Tamilnadu

K.Sundaramoorthy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police