Allowed

Mr. M. Natarajan, 50 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Dec 2021CRL OP/19772/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three criminal petitions challenging proceedings under Section 304-A IPC for negligence were allowed. The High Court quashed the trial after finding evidence indicated an accidental fall and the petitioner company had already paid compensation, rendering prosecution futile.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions allowed and Criminal Court No. 767 of 2016 quashed.

Mr. M. Natarajan, 50 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated 01.12.2021

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶5

Crl. O.P. Nos.19772, 27268 and 20845 of 2017 and

¶6

Crl.M.P.Nos.11931, 11932, 15627, 15628, 12395 and 12396 of 2017

¶7

M.Natarajan ...Petitioner/1^st Accused in Crl.O.P.No.19972 of 2017

¶8

Balamurugan

¶9

Arun ...2^nd and 3^rd Accused/Petitioners in Crl.OP.27268/2017

¶10

Rajesh Prinso ... Petitioner/4^th Accused in Crl.O.P.No.20845 of 2017

¶11

Versus

¶12

1.The Inspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai-600016.

¶13

2.Poorna Chandra Rao @ Poorna ...Respondents in all Crl.O.Ps

¶14

COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.767 of 2016 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chengalpet District and to quash the proceeding against the petitioners.

¶15

For Petitioners : Mr.K.R.Samratt

¶16

in Crl.O.P.Nos.19772 and 27268/2017 Mr.M.Vijayan for M/s. King & Partridge in Crl.O.P.No.20845 of 2017

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar

¶18

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1(in all Crl.O.Ps) : Mr.K.Balasubramanian for R2 (in all Crl.O.Ps)

¶19

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

¶20

C O M M ON O R D E R

¶21

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.767 of 2016, pending on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chengalpet District.

¶22

Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.19772 of 2017 is the sole Proprietor of Radiant Engineering. Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.27268 of 2017 are the employees of sole Proprietorship concern, viz., Radiant Engineering. Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.20845 of 2017 is employed as Manager in SIEMENS Limited.

¶23

The crux of the prosecution is that originally Chennai Metro Rail Limited has awarded contract to SIEMENS Limited/fourth accused/petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.20845 of 2017. SIEMENS in turn gave sub contract to Radiant Engineering for electrical work. On 26/3/2016, at about 5.40 p.m., the deceased had fallen into the storm drain pit, sustained severe injuries by piercing of 1 feet long iron road and consequently died. Hence, F.I.R in Crime No.771 of 2016 was filed by the respondent Police, for the offence punishable under Section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code, for causing death, due to negligence act, against three employees of Radiant Engineering and also against the Manager of SIEMENS Limited.

¶24

Heard Mr.K.R.Samratt, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.19772 and 27268 of 2017, Mr.M.Vijayan, for M/s.King and Partridge, learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.20845 of 2017, Mr.R.Kishore Kumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the first respondent and Mr.K.Balasubramaniam for the second respondent.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that merely because the death had occurred, while the deceased was working, they were prosecuted and moreover, no materials are available to prove that there were rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioners. All the materials collected by the prosecution, clearly indicate that the deceased himself died due to an accidental fall and succumbed to injuries. Therefore, mere fall by the deceased while working cannot be construed to say that there was a rash and negligent act on the part of the petitioners, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Since, the Company had already paid adequate compensation to the deceased and his family members, prays for quashment of C.C.No.767 of 2016.

¶26

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

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant along with de facto complaint were present before this Court and filed an affidavit, dated, 2911/2021 and the relevant portion of the affidavit is extracted hereunder:-

¶28

“My sister's family was paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as workmen compensation from SIEMENS Company and further a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the SIEMENS Company towards Employee compensation with the support and instance of the Radiant Engineering. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the Radiant Engineering towards medical expenditure and further a sum of Rs.14,500/- per month is received by sister's family from Employees State Insurance and Provident Fund.

¶29

The learned Government Advocate (Government Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that the employees who are working in construction site have not been provided with mandatory safety gears. Therefore, merely because compensation is paid, charge cannot be quashed.

¶30

I have perused the materials available on record.

¶31

Normally, the Courts are reluctant to quash the final report when there are materials to proceed against the accused. But when the materials collected by the prosecution indicate that death was only due to the accidental fall and there is no rash and negligent act of the accused, continuation of the prosecution is nothing but a futile exercise.

¶32

On a perusal of the materials collected particularly, the statement of the eye witnesses version would clearly indicate that the deceased had died due to accidental fall. When the deceased died due to accidental fall, rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioners cannot be attributed. Nowhere, it is stated that the accused had acted in a rash or negligent manner. In such a view of the matter, this Court is of the view that continuation of the prosecution will not serve any purpose.

¶33

Defacto complainant is present before this Court and he has admitted that his sister's family had received the compensation, as stated in previous paragraphs. That apart, he has also submitted that the deceased died due to the accidental fall. In such a view of the matter, this Court is inclined to

¶34

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

¶35

quash the proceedings pending against the accused.

¶36

In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. C.C.No.767 of 2016 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chengalpet District is quashed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-

¶37

Assistant Registrar(CS-VI)

¶38

// True Copy //

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶40

psa/mvs

¶41

¶42

1.The Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chengalpet District.

¶43

2.TheInspector of Police, St.Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai-600016.

¶44

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶45

+2cc to M/s.King & Partridge, Advocate SR.No.62839 +2cc to Mr.K.R.Samratt, Advocate SR.No.62914,62915

¶46

Crl. O.P. Nos.19772, 27268 and 20845 of 2017

¶47

GPL(CO) CB(03/01/2022)

¶48

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

Mr. M. Natarajan, 50 Yrs, v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. M. Natarajan, 50 Yrs, 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

Saravanan, M/37 Vs the Additional Superintendent

P.K.Gunasekaran Vs R.Bhaskaran

Surjatha, PROPRIETOR,42 Yrs, Vs Dr.E.Kalivaradhan, Md.

Mrs.Vimalla Joseb (F/A-47 Yrs) Vs Mr.Geethu Thomas

JEBAMANICKAM,55 Yrs, Vs A.S. Ganapathy, 74 Yrs

G.Kamaraj (M/A-45 Years) Vs P.Ezhilsikkiyaraja