…. Satish Kumar Chawra v. 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Abhay Singh
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Revision No. 1242 of 2019 …. Satish Kumar Chawra Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Abhay Singh ----- …… Petitioner …… Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. L. C. N. Sahdeo, Advocate For the State For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate : Mr. Someshwar Roy, A. P. P. …… ORAL ORDER IN COURT 07/16.10.2023 This Criminal Revision No. 1242 of 2019 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in M.C.A. No. 556 of 2019 in connection with Bankmore P. S. Case No. 340 of 2017 corresponding to G. R. No. 4970 of 2017 [S.T. No. 04 of 2019] by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge- XI, Dhanbad has rejected the discharge petition filed under Section 227 of the Cr. P. C. on behalf of the petitioner by observing that prima facie case under Section 304 part-II of the Indian Penal Code is made out. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 01.12.2017 around 1.30 P. M. in the night while the old boring of the machine was being cleaned, then suddenly diesel/ petrol of nearby petrol
Facts
pump also starting flowing of and due to which fire caught and due to the act of fire, the employees and labours of the company and Rahul Kumar Tiwary i.e. the son of the Owner of the informant had sustained burn injury and thereafter they had been taken to Local Hospital and for better treatment the son of the Owner of the Informant- Rahul Kumar Tiwary was sent to DESUN Hospital, Kolkata where he succumbed to his injuries on -2- 05.12.2017. It has been alleged that despite giving prior notice to the Owner of the petrol pump, no proper steps was taken with regard to stoppage of leakage. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Legal Reasoning
Therefore, this Court is of the view that prima facie, no case under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code is made out, rather it can be a case of Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, which can be examined by the learned Court below on its own merit. 17. In that view of the matter, the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad in M.C.A. No. 556 of 2019 in connection with Bankmore P. S. Case No. 340 of 2017 corresponding to G. R. No. 4970 of 2017 [S.T. No. 04 of 2019] is set aside in the interest of justice and the case is remitted back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Dhanbad/ or his Successor Court below to pass afresh speaking order in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to both the sides within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. However, the Informant will be at liberty to approach learned Secretary, DLSA, Dhanbad for seeking compensation under the provisions of Victim Compensation Scheme for the treatment of injured persons and for the family members of the deceased son of the Owner of the Basant Road Carrier. 19. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision No. 1242 of 2019 is allowed with the observation mentioned above and stands
Arguments
counsel for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the impugned order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that although the police has submitted charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304/277/285 of the Indian Penal Code, yet police official had observed that there is no fault of the petitioner and has alleged the petitioner has the knowledge. It is submitted that during investigation, it was found by the police, after joint inspection carried out at the petrol pump that there was no leakage and which is mentioned at para-44 of the case diary. It is further submitted that even during investigation carried out by the IOC, which is mentioned in para-44 of the case diary, it was found that there was no deficiency during enquiry. It is submitted that the learned Court below has applied its mind to frame charge under Section 304 Para-II of the Indian Penal Code, which is not made out and as such, the Court below has committed illegality by rejecting the discharge petition filed under Section 227 of the Cr. P. C. and as such, Criminal Revision No. 1242 of 2019 may be allowed and as such, the impugned order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Court below may be set aside in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit and the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no -3- interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is negligent person and due to the act of the negligence on behalf of the petitioner, a fire took place in the company of the Owner of the informant near the petrol pump and due to which son of the Owner of the informant had died at hospital in Kolkata. It is submitted that several persons have supported the allegation against this petitioner. It is submitted that even the police has submitted charge sheet under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and as such, the order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court and this Criminal Revision No. 1242 of 2019 may be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the informant, after adopting the submission of the learned counsel for the State, has further submitted that this Criminal Revision Application is devoid of merit. It is submitted that apart from the informant several witnesses namely Durga Prasad Sharma, Tufani Gaud, Ramashankar Gaud, Jaggu Yadav, Rakesh Choubey, Hadyanand Yadav, Ruplal Hembram, Sanichar Murmu, Sunil Murmu, whose statement have been mentioned at para-3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15,16 and 17 of the case diary, have supported the allegation against the petitioner and supported the case made out in the FIR and has stated that due to act of negligence on the part of the petitioner and his employees, this occurrence took place and due to which, several persons became injured due to fire burn and as such, no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner had preferred Cr. M. P. No. 22 of 2019, which was dismissed on 01.07.2019 by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that from the impugned order passed by the learned Court below, it is evident -4- that petrol pump of the petitioner has found mixed with the kerosene and as such, this Criminal Revision Application may be dismissed. 7. Perused the Lower Court Records of the case and the impugned order passed by the learned Court below and considered the submissions of both the sides. 8. It appears from the FIR that while the informant along with other employees of the company was cleaning the machine of the boring, a fire took place due to leakage of the petrol pump of this petitioner. 9. It appears from the FIR that the petitioner was not present on the date of occurrence when the incident of fire took place. 10. It further appears that though the occurrence took place in the night of 01.12.2017, however, the FIR was lodged on 05.12.2017 by the Clerk/Munsi of the Company i.e. Basant Road Carrier. 11. It further reveals from the case diary that the witnesses have supported the allegation of catching fire due to negligence on the act of the petitioner and his employees, yet it is apparent that the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence. 12. It also reveals from perusal of para- 44 and para- 47 of the case diary that no leakage was found on the tanks of the pipeline of the petrol pump of the petitioner. 13. It has been held in the case of GHCL Employees Stock Option Trust Vs. India Infoline Ltd. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 505 at para-14 as follows:- “Para-14:- Be that as it may, as held by this Court, summoning of accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Hence, criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and accused must reflect that he has applied his mind -5- to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. The Magistrate has to record his satisfaction with regard to the existence of a prima facie case on the basis of specific allegations made in the complaint supported by satisfactory evidence and other material on record.” 14. It has been held in the case of Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2002) 2 SCC 135 at para-12 as follows:- “Para-12:- Now the next question is whether a prima facie case has been made out against the appellant. In exercising powers under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; by and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court but should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial [See Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal]” 15. It further appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge XI, Dhanbad has further committed grave illegality by observing that offence under Section 304 part-II is prima facie made out even if when it is apparent from the FIR and the case diary that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. 16. It would appear that so far as the present case is concerned, there is no intention on the part of the petitioner or involvement on the date of occurrence for committing any overt act to kill any person. -6-