This High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings for offences under Section 338 IPC. The court held that the final report did not allege that the petitioners' rash or negligent acts were the immediate cause of the accident, which resulted in the victim's hand amputation.
The final report is quashed and the petition is allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.4106 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Crl.O.P. No. 4106 of 2021 and
Crl.M.P. Nos. 2643 & 2645 of 2021
1.Tamilselvan
2.Sakthivel ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The State Rep. by Inspector of Police Sendamangalam Police Station Nammakal.
2.Alamelu
... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and quash the proceedings in STC No.502 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Namakkal for offences under Section 338 IPC.
1/9
Crl.O.P.No.4106 of 2021
For Petitioners : Mr. S.Sheik Ismail For Respondent 1 : Mr. A.Damodaran Additional Public Prosecutor For Respondent 2 : Mr. K.Balaji
O R D E R
The petition is filed to quash the final report for the alleged
offences under Section 338 IPC.
management of Oil Mill, in which the 2nd respondent was working. It is alleged that the 2nd respondent had without any safety measures was asked to operate the machine; that her hand got stuck in the machine
and had to be amputated.
is nothing in the impugned final report to show that the alleged
2/9
Crl.O.P.No.4106 of 2021
accident took place due to the negligent act of the petitioners. There is also nothing stated in the final report as to what were the safety measures that the petitioners ought to have taken to prevent such accidents. The learned counsel would submit that the case of an accident is projected as a case of negligent act by the petitioners.
submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and prayed for the dismissal of the quash petition.
3/9
Crl.O.P.No.4106 of 2021
there is nothing in the impugned final report to show that the alleged accident took place on account of either rash or negligent act of the petitioners. This Court had time and again held that the act of accused must be the causa causans (i.e.,) immediate cause for the occurrence. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the act of the petitioners was the immediate cause for the accident. Admittedly, the hand of the 2nd respondent accidentally got stuck in the machine, which resulted in amputation. The following observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushil Ansal Vs. State through Central Bureau of Investigation – 2014 (6) SCC 173 would make that clear:
“81. Suffice it to say that this Court has in Kurban
Husseins case accepted in unequivocal terms the correctness of the proposition that criminal liability under Section 304-A of the IPC shall arise only if the prosecution proves that the death of the victim was the result of a rash or negligent act of the accused and that such act was the proximate and efficient cause without the
4/9
Crl.O.P.No.4106 of 2021
intervention of another persons negligence. A subsequent decision of this Court in Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 829 has once again approved the view taken in Omkar Rampratap case that the act of the accused must be proved to be the causa causans and not simply a causa sine qua non for the death of the victim in a case under Section 304-A of the IPC. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Rustom Sherior Irani v. State of Maharashtra 1969 ACJ 70; Balchandra v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 1319;Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana(1970) 3 SCC 904; S.N Hussain v. State of A.P. (1972) 3 SCC 18; Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (1972) 3 SCC 525 and Jacob Mathew's case.
82. To sum up: for an offence under Section 304-A
to be proved it is not only necessary to establish that the accused was either rash or grossly negligent but also that such rashness or gross negligence was the causa causans
5/9
Crl.O.P.No.4106 of 2021
that resulted in the death of the victim.
83. As to what is meant by causa causans we may gainfully refer to Blacks Law Dictionary (Fifth Edition) which defines that expression as under: “Causa causans-
The immediate cause; the last link in the chain of causation.
The Advance Law Lexicon edited by Justice Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India defines Causa Causans as follows: “Causa causans-The immediate cause as opposed to a remote cause; the last link in the chain of causation; the real effective cause of damage.
84. The expression proximate cause is defined in the 5th edition of Blacks Law Dictionary as under: “Proximate cause-That which in a natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury and without which the result would not have occurred. Wisniewski vs. Great Atlantic & Pac. Tea
Company., A2d at p. 748. That which is nearest in the
Crl.O.P.No.4106 of 2021
order of responsible causation. That which stands next in causation to the effect, not necessarily in time or space but in causal relation. The proximate cause of an injury is the primary or moving cause, or that which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the accident could not have happened, if the injury be one which might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural consequence of the wrongful act. An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act, or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence in the case, that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage; and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission.”
7/9
Crl.O.P.No.4106 of 2021
as to the safety measures which were allegedly not taken by the petitioners due to which the accident took place. For the above said reasons, the impugned final report is liable to be quashed.
connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.
11.04.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation :Yes/No kan
To
The Judicial Magistrate II, Namakkal.
8/9
Crl.O.P.No.4106 of 2021
SUNDER MOHAN. J,
kan
Crl.O.P.No. 4106 of 2021
11.04.2023
9/9
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the final report alleges rash or negligent act of petitioners as the immediate cause of the accident.
Whether the final report alleges failure to take safety measures caused the accident.
Whether the petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kurban Husseins caseReferred¶39
Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 829Referred¶39
Omkar Rampratap caseReferred¶39
Rustom Sherior Irani v. State of Maharashtra 1969 ACJ 70Referred¶39
Balchandra v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 1319Referred¶39
Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana(1970) 3 SCC 904Referred¶39
S.N Hussain v. State of A.P. (1972) 3 SCC 18Referred¶39
Ambalal D. Bhatt v. State of Gujarat (1972) 3 SCC 525Referred¶39
Jacob Mathew's caseReferred¶39
2 provisions across 2 enactments
1.Tamilselvan
2.Sakthivel
The State
Alamelu
SUNDER MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
