Allowed

Velaga Ram Mohan Rao v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Aug 2022CRLP/1601/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner accused under Section 304-A IPC. The court held that the charge sheet disclosed no prima facie case as it failed to show the accused committed any rash or negligent act. Consequently, continuing the trial would be unjustifiable.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.54 of 2015 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon, are quashed.

Velaga Ram Mohan Rao Vs State of Telangana — Quashing and FIR | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

i I I fi

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

TUESDAY.THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENiY rWO""'

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA cRt M INAL PETITIO NNO:1 601 0F 2021

¶6

Between:

¶7

Velaga Ram Mohan Rao Sio lMarkendeya 46 years, Vyshya, Business, R/o H.No. 11-27-1611, Vasavi Colony, pochamma Maidan, Warangat.

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIoNERyACCUSED

¶10

State of Telanoana through public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hy:derabad

¶11

Mutyala Saritha Wo. Late M_Ravi kumar, Occ. Business, Aged about 35 years, R/o H.No 16_1_343 snntnotj, xiiiri6ri, wrrii1U;f -- *---.-"

¶12

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANTS

¶13

Petition under Section 482 of cr.p.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal'pelition, the High court;;/b" pleased to quash c.c.No. s4 of 201b on the fite of the Judicial First ciass Magistrate, Jangaon, Warangat District

¶14

l.A. NO: 1OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 482 of Cr P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings C.C No. 54 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magrstrate, Jangaon, Warangal District

¶16

This Petition coming on for hearing,upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri BANKATLAL MANDHANI .Advocate for the Petitioner and the Assistant Public Prosecutor^on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and of Sri^none appeared^{Advocatefor the} Respondent No 2

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

-.'a

¶19

HO I{ B L ; DR. JUS ?/C.E CH I LI,AKT,IR {; UW A L,qTⁱ TA e^{TIMINAL_PETnIQN} Nq-ltiqlql^2Q I I

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Proje:ting that the petitioner has not committed any offer :e whatsoever and therefore, i ritiation of prosecuti< n against him is unjustiliable a nd thereby, seeking t re Court to quash C.C.No.S4 of 110 15 that is pending r n the fiIe of the Court of .Judicial Wagistrate of First Cla ss, Jangaon, the present Crimir:rl petition is filed.

¶22

Th, petitioner is arrayed as accused rr C.C.No.54 of 2015 th Lt is pending on the file of the Corrrt of.Judicial Magistr: te of First Class, Jangaon. The allr:gation is that he has committed offence punishable. rrnder Section 304-A I"C.

¶23

H, ard the submission of the lcarn(.c c(,unsel for petition :r as well as the learnerl As;istant public Prosecr tor.

¶24

T, re crux of the prosecution casr as could be perceivt d through the < the dec .".o_; of the char5;c sheet is that rar (hcrcinaftcr ^u.-n*ntt be. rcfef'"(.to u.

¶25

¶26

Dr.CSL, J CrIPNo.1601 of 2O21

¶27

"the deceased" for the sake o[ convenience of discussion) is the husband of respondent No.2 (hereinafter be referred to as "the defacto complainant" for the sake of convenience of discussion). The petitioner/ accused is the Managing Director of Sriramalinga Cotton Ginning Mill which is located at the outskirts of Nellutla village. The deceased was involved in the work of filling mill cylinders. While so, on O l.O 1.2015, the deceased along with two others went_to Ginning mill of the petitioner/ accused to fiIl the mill cylinder. While the deceased was filling the mill cylinder, suddenly the cylinder blasted, due to which the deceased sustained severe injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Area Hospital, Jangaon and from there, he was shifted to Max Care Hospital and from tf-rere to Care Hospital, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. However, the deceased succumbed to injuries. The incident occurred as the petitioner/ accused^directedthe deceased to fill the mill^{c-vlinder in a negligent manner} and without taking^{an)' proper precautions'Thus,the} petitioner/ accused committed^{offencepunishabie under} ' Section 3O4^{A IPC}

¶28

¶29

Ih.CSL, J Crll'ho. ) 60I of^{2O2 l}

¶30

Stren rously arguing that the^{materi,rl thatis} produced t^,r the investigating agency does n,rt^show that the petitior er/accused in any way acted in I rash^and negligent nanner, learned counsel for tht^pelitioner states thal the learned Magistrate took t:ogn ii;ance of the offence in a more mechanical manner and therr: is no evidence⁽ r material on record to connect tLe petitioner with the r eath of the deceased and even rf the case is allowed tr be tried, it would definitely result in acquittal of the 1 etitioner/accused. l,earned courtsel further contends that initiation of proceedings against the petitioner 'accused is nothing but abuse cf process of criminal i rw. Hence, the petitioner approacir,:cl this Court seeking t quash the proceedings.

¶31

On the other hand, learned Assislanr public Prosecut,r contends that the petitioncr/ar.c:scd failed to take pr( oer precautions and he acted rr a negligent manner, as per the contents of the <harge sheet. How'ever learned Assistant public pros<.c u tor did not clarify^. 'hat precautions the petitionor /.r(;cu sed lwas

¶32

¶33

Dt.CSL, J CrlPNo.l@l of 2021

¶34

under obligation to take and in what way he acted in a negligent manner.

¶35

It is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner/ accused entrusted the u,ork of filling the mill cylinder to any of his employees or to any person who does not have knowledge in the said field. As per the contents of the charge sheet itself, it is clear that the deceased was involved in the work of filling mill cylinders since ten y6ars prior to the date of incident

¶36

Section 304-A IPC makes the person, who causes death of another by doing any rash and negligent act which act does not amount to culpable homicide, punishable. The punishment prescribed is imprisonment of either description which may extend lo two years or with fine or with both.

¶37

9 . The manner in which the petitioner/ accused was negligent and his contribution in the incident^{to occur is} not narrated an1'where^{in thc charge sheet. As rightly} submitted by^{the learned counsel for the petitioner even} the statements^{of the witnessesu'horvere examinedlby}

¶38

¶39

Dt.CSL, J C'L'No.16t)l of 2O2l

¶40

rl I

¶41

the proset -rting agency does not disclose^{any iota of such} negligenc( on part of the^{petitioner/accused} . Further,^it is not th ) case of the prosecution that irny Rule or Regulatio r in that regard is violate d by the petitioner 'accused or that, there was a ny ban lor re-filling ,f mill cylinders. Also, it is not the version of the prosecuti rn that the petitioner, who is rurrr ing a Cotton Ginning ',Iill, is prevented from engaging ary third party for filling the mill cylinders.

¶42

Ma :ing his submission that negligenc:,,r crrnnot be attribut€ I without proof of above particuLari, th,: learned counsel or the petitioner relied upon the cccision of the Hon'ble \pex court in the case betwecn Indian Medical Associo :ion Vs. V.P. Shantha d.nd other:)

¶43

I I . [n the case on hand, there is no material rvhatsot rer to show the culpabilitv of the petition r/accused. When, as rightll, submittecl by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no material at least prima facie that is shown to hav,: bcen collected b1- the investigating agency during t ri: <:oursq of

¶44

Al t,a r 99 sc 550

¶45

¶46

Dr.CSL, J CrlPNo.l60l of 2O2I

¶47

investigation to establish the involvement of the petitioner in the death of the deceased either directly or indirectly and that his acts, if any, can be termed to be negligent and that, he contributed to the incident to occur, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to permit continuation of proceedings against him.

¶48

Indicating that where the case does not disclose the cause of action, continuation of proceedings 1S undesirable, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between State of Haryana Vs BhajanlaP, at paras 1O8 and 109 of the judgment observed as under:

¶49

"1O8. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Codc under Chapter XIV and of the principles o[ law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent pou'ers under Section 482 of the Code which u,c havc extracted and reproduced above, we give the follou.ing categories of cases by way of illustrati<-rn u.hcrein such power could be exerciscd cither to prevcnt abuse of the process of any Court or othenvise to secure the ends of^justice, though it may not^bc possible to lay down any precisc, clearly defined

¶50

z 1992 scc (crt. )426

¶51

¶52

Itr.CSL, J Crll N).160I of2O2l

¶53

and s rfficiently channelised^{andinflt xible} guidelir,rs or rigid formulae and to giv,:^an exhaus rve list of myriad kinds of cases 'r'f^erein such pr wer should be exercised

¶54

Wh :re the allegations made in tht !-irstI nform, tion Report or the complaint, even i^' thel' are tal:n at their face value and accepted rr their entiret do not prima facie constitute any cffencr: or mal e out a case against the accused

¶55

Wh re the altegations in the First Inforrnation Report and other materials, if any, accomp;rnying thc F.R. do not disclose a cognizable offencc, justify ng an investigation by police offrcers undt:r Sectio r 156 (l) of the Code except under iuL ordr:r of a \tlzrgistrate within the purview of liection I 55(2 ot the Code

¶56

Wl ere the uncontroverted allegations [rade in the F R or complaint and the evidence colkcted in suppi rt of the same do not disclo';e the comn ission of any offence and make out a case agair ;t the accused

¶57

4 \f, rcre, the allegations in the F.l.R do not cons tute a cognizable offence but constitute only a n^,n cognizable offence, no investiSia tion is perrr Ltted by a police officer without an order of a Magr itrate as contemplated under Sectirlr 155(2) ol th Code

¶58

'hcre the allegations made in the l,-lR or com^,laint are so absurd and inht:rerrtl.y impr rbablc on the basis of which nc prudent pers )n can ever reach a just conclusion tlrat thcre

¶59

¶60

D..CSL, J CrlPNo.l60l of 2O2l

¶61

¶62

is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused

¶63

Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specihc provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party

¶64

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala frde and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge

¶65

1O9. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of^rare cases; that the Court will not be^{justified in} embarking upon an^{enquiryas to the reliabilitl' or} genuineness or^{otherwise of the allegationsmade} in the F.l.R. or^{the complaint and that thc} extraordinary^{or inherentpowers do not conferan} arbitrary^{jurisdictionon the Courtto act accorcling} to its whim^{or caprice."}

¶66

Thus, the^{above decision makesit clcar that \ /hen} no pima facie case is^{made out forcontinuationof}

¶67

¶68

D.-CSL, J CrlP,to.160'of2O21

¶69

proceeding; against the petitioner, it^{wou'dbe wholly} undesirab 'r to^permit continuation^{of those} I)roceedings.

¶70

ln tl: case on hand, there is no material^{on record} to show tl e involvement of the petitioner /rrccused in the incident hat occurred. Therefore, this Oorrrt is; of the view thal the request of the petitioner cal te considered and ther, bv, the proceedings initiated againrit hirn can be quashed

¶71

Re ,ultantly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceed,rgs that are initiated rrgainst the petition r/accused in C.C.No.54 of 20 l5 zuLd are pending on the lle ol the Court of Judicial Mq-eistrate of First Class, . :rngaon are hereby quashed.

¶72

¶73

A a sequel, pending miscellaneour; applications, if an-t'. sl- rli stand closed

¶74

¶75

SD/. T. SRINIVAS OEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER.^/iu ',.\rr\t,

¶76

To,

¶77

'1. The Judicial I :llass Muncif Magistrate Jangaon, Warangal Dist. 2. Two CCs to t re Public Prosecutor, High Court for the fjtrte of Telangana, Hyderabad

¶78