Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanjuganj, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O Police Station Rajpur, Distri
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:31226 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 834 of 2022 Vinod Agrawal @ Maggu S/o Jogiram Agrawal Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bheski, Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanjuganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O Police Station Rajpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.08 18:32:29 +0530 2 “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the charge-sheet dated 23.07.2021 filed before the Court of JMFC, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) under Sections 287, 304(A) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequential criminal proceedings pending against the present petitioner bearing Criminal Case No. 197 of 2022 arising out of Crime No. 34 of 2021 pending before the Court of JMFC, Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.), in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, a Merg was reported by the co- accused, Naziruddin on 17.06.2020 that he was operating the Crusher Plant of the petitioner named and styled as ‘Maa Mahamaya Stone Crusher’, suddenly the machine started malfunctioning on which it was stopped and a labour was sent to see the defect, on which it was told by the labour a dead body is struck in the machine, immediately he informed the ofÏce and ofÏcials informed the owner of the plant i.e. the petitioner herein, thereafter, the petitioner directed them to inform the Police. Thereafter, during the investigation DNA report of the dead body was sent to Forensic Science Lab of Government and after investigation the dead body was found to be of a missing person named as Shivnarayan. The report was lodged on 19.02.2021 alleging offences under Sections 287, 304A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against the petitioner and the co-accused, Naziruddin. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the proprietor of the Maa Mahamaya Stone Crusher Plant. The petitioner vide agreement dated 16.04.2020 has entered into an agreement with co- accused, Naziruddin Ansari for management and governance of the Plant 3 and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement Clause No. 5. i.e. in case any accident or mis-happening, the responsibility would be on the Contractor/Manager. A Copy of the agreement dated 16.04.2020 is annexed herewith as Annexure P/3. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the co-accused, Naziruddin Ansari has also made an application to the Inspector General of Police, Surguja Range (C.G) for conducting investigation in fair and proper manner in Merg No. 38 of 2020, P.S Chowki Bariyoas there existed many discrepancies, which occurred during investigation, as there was no fault of the co-accused and the present petitioner to be involved in the accident of an unknown person who was not even the labour employed at the plant and perhaps was an mentally disabled person who in what manner came inside the premises and got struck in the machine was not known to the petitioner nor the co- accused. He also contended that the petitioner was served with the notice dated 27.06.2020 under section 91 of the Cr.P.C. by the P.S Chowki Bariyo for investigation of the Merg, asking certain queries to the petitioner. The petitioner in turn has made available the C.CT.V footage of the plant between 16.06.2020 to 17.06.2020 to the police authorities. The petitioner has further made available the details of the truck and labours working at the Crusher Plant at the time of incident and has also denied any knowledge of the incident as to how the dead person came in contact with the Crusher Plant and found dead at the place of incident. He would submit that Inspector General, Surguja has made an query to the Additional Director Prosecution (ADP) about the legal opinion of the case. On which the ADP has forwarded the legal opinion to the Inspector 4 General, Surguja stating in at that as the inquiry of the Merg and investigation of the prosecution and statement of the witnesses it is vivid and clear that the offence under Section 304 Part II is not made out in the incident, however, has opined that since the negligence was on the part of the person who of started the machine and the Manager or Contractor under whose supervision the plant was being operated, therefore, the prosecution may be setup against such persons under section 287 and 304A of the IPC. This fact is also apparent from the charge-sheet filed by the prosecution. He submits that the charge-sheet has been filed after investigation on 23.07.2021 before the Court of JMFC, Rajpur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.). Further, the proceedings have been started in the present case bearing Criminal Case No. 197/2022 arising out of Crime No. 34/2021 before the Court of JMFC, Rajpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner being proprietor of the Plant has committed no negligence in operation of the plant and is not even vicariously liable for the offence under section 287, 304A and 34 of the IPC as there is no direct nexus of the incident and the petitioner to it, for the reason that the Plant was being operated on the Contract basis by the co-accused person who as per the agreement itself is responsible for any accident, if any, and mis-happening taking place while operating the Crusher Plant. Hence, this petition for quashing of charge-sheet dated 23.07.2021 and consequential criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 197 of 2022 pending before the Court of JMFC, Rajpur. District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) 7. On the other, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made 5 by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that in the present case charges have already been framed against the petitioner on 20.10.2022 and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence on 21.08.2025. He also submits that the petitioner has not made complainant party in the present petition. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- sheet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS or under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10. In the present case, admittedly, after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the learned trial Court has taken cognizance of the evidences and upon finding prima facie evidence regarding commission of offence, the trial has been initiated against the petitioner and the learned trial Court have already been framed the charges against the petitioner. 11. From perusal of the charge-sheet, it is evident that the incident has been taken place on 17.06.2020 and the lease deed was executed 6 between the petitioner and co-accused, Naziruddin on 16.04.2020, which goes to show that the petitioner has tried to escape the responsibility of the crime which has been committed in the Crusher Plant. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and there was no interim order passed in favour of the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the present CRMP is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan