Allowed

Vimal Kumar and Ors. v. State

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2023CRLMP/298/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed an impugned order taking cognizance of an offence and issued process against electricity department officers without specific claims of negligence. The Court remanded the matter for fresh proceedings with directions to name specific accused persons rather than designations.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 16.09.2013 and 01.12.2015 and remanded the matter to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara to pass a fresh order on cognizance, issuing process only against named

Vimal Kumar and Ors. Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:41287]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 298/2016

¶4

Vimal Kumar Panchal S/o Raghunathji Panchal, Ex. Executive Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Banswara (Raj.), At present Superintending Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyt Vitran Nigam Limited, Dungarpur (Raj.)

¶5

Dhool Chand Tambolia S/o Halaji Tambolia, B/c Bheel, Ex. Assistant Engineer, Gramin Banswara, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited Banswara (Raj.) R/o Khuntagalia, Tehsil Bagidora District Banswara (Raj.)

¶6

Kamal Kishore S/o Lalittasskar Ji Pandya, B/c Brahmin, Ex. Junior Engineer, Gramin Banswara, at present Assistant Engineer meter side Testing, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited Banswara (Raj.)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan

¶10

Shamboo S/o Jokha B/c Bheel, R/o Heerapada, P.S. Sadar, Banswara.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. PankajGupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
	Mr. Parikshit Nayak

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶14

Order

¶15

ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 28/07/2023 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 06/ 12 /2023

¶16

BY THE COURT:-

¶17

By way of filing the instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenge is made to the order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara in FR No.17/2009 (pertaining to FIR

[2023:RJ-JD:41287]

[CRLMP-298/2016]

(2 of 4)

No.112/2009 registered at the Police Station Sadar, Banswara) whereby the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner and the order dated 01.12.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal Revision Petition No.38/2015 whereby the learned Judge dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the order under assail and relevant material.

¶23

On careful perusal of the material, it is reflecting that Ms. Anita got hurt by the shock of electric current emitting from the wire lying on the road. After thorough investigation, a negative final report came to be submitted by the official concerned with the observation that due to heavy thunder storm, the wire of 132 KV broke and fell down on the road suddenly as a consequence of which, the victim sustained injuries. It was the definite report that the employees of electricity department were not responsible for the said accident and thus, a negative final report got submitted by the concerned officials in the Court below.

¶24

Upon the protest made by the complainant Shambhoo, learned Magistrate initiated inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr.P.C. and recorded the statements of witnesses and complainant whereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 337 & 338 of the IPC and issued process against (i) the Electricity Department, Ajmer (ii) the then

(3 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:41287]

[CRLMP-298/2016]

Executive Engineer, AVVNL, (iii) the then Asstt. Engineer and the then Junior Engineer AVVNL.

¶29

The petitioners who are the then Superintending Engineer, Asstt. Engineer and Junior Engineer of the AVVNL preferred a revision petition before the learned Court of revision, however, the same has been dismissed. Hence, the instant Misc. Petition.

¶30

Admittedly, name of any person responsible for the mischief has not been mentioned either in the FIR or in the statement of the witnesses recorded during inquiry. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence but issued process against the officers, who were posted in the Electricity Department at the relevant time. It is not comprehensible as to who were the persons responsible for the dereliction of the duties or recklessness and negligence. A blanket order can never be passed against any post or designation rather it should be firm and must indicate name of the accused. It is also worth considering that no person can be held vicariously liable unless there is specific provision in the Statute. There is a specific plea that the installation and maintenance of 132 KV electric lines were being done by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. and the Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran NigamLimited had to do nothing with that lining. However, the learned Court below issued process against the employees serving under the AVVNL. The efforts were made to get the service effected upon the petitioners i.e. the then Superintending Engineer, Astt. Engineer & Junior Engineer without there being any specific plea and assertion regarding the role

(4 of 4)

[2023:RJ-JD:41287]

[CRLMP-298/2016]

played by them. A serious discrepancy has also been noted to the effect that in the FIR it was alleged that the electric wire was lying on the road since 2-3 days whereas during inquiry, it was alleged that the wire were lying there since 2-3 months and on the contrary, the police report filed under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.P.C. reflecting that due to thunder storm in the previous night, the electric wires of the polls broken and fell down due to which the said accident occurred. Be that as it may, this Court instead of making denovo inquiry, deems it appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶35

Accordingly, the instant Misc. Petition is allowed. The order dated 16.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara as well as the order dated 01.12.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara in Criminal Revision Petition No.38/2015 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banswara with a direction to pass a fresh order on the point of cognizance. Needless to say that in case, if the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence; the process shall be issued by naming the accused against whom the material is found on record. No process shall be issued in the name of any post or designation.

¶36

8. The stay petition also stands disposed of.

¶37

(FARJAND ALI), J.

¶38

mamta/-

Vimal Kumar and Ors. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimal Kumar and Ors. v. State

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

Vishwanath Chotiya Vs State

Shivani Vs State of Rajasthan

Tararam Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Bhargava Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandesh Kumar Vs Subodh Kumar

State Vs Muzib Rahman