Criminal Petition No. 6480 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1809 CRL.P No. 6480 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6480 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. MOHAMMAD IQBAL, S/O B.K. USMAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT RENJADI HOUSE, NITHYANANDANAGAR, BELMA, DERLAKATTE, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 018. 2. MOHAMMAD FAIZAL S ALIAS FAIZ, S/O MOIDEEN KUNHI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.3-143, AJJINADKA HOUSE, KOTEKAR, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 025. 3. ALI KUTTY KUNJATHOOR, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O HUSSAIN BEARY AYSHA MANZIL IRSHAS NAGAR UDYAVAR KUNJAHUR, KASARAGOD, KERALA - 671 323.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1809 CRL.P No. 6480 of 2022 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. H.S. CYPRY D'SOUZA, D/O SYLVESTER D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT 3-127/19, PILI KULA CROSS ROAD, K.H.B NEAR COLONY DOORDARSHAN, THIRUVAL, WAMANJOOR, MANGALURU CITY - 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.61/2022 REGISTERED BY KANKANADY TOWN POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304 R/W 34 OF IPC PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT DATED 01.06.2022 LODGED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1809 CRL.P No. 6480 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 in Cr.No.61 of 2022 of Kankanady Town Police Station, pending on the file of learned VII JMFC Court, Mangalore City, for the offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant filed first information with Kankanady Town Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 5 alleging commission of offence under Section 304 of IPC. It is alleged that accused No.5 is the owner of the site, where the building was being constructed. Accused No.1 being the Electrical and Plumbing Contractor, appointed the deceased to work in the building. While he was working on the 10th floor of the building, he fell down to 3rd floor. Since he was not provided with any safety measures including helmet and belt, he sustained fatal injuries. Immediately he was shifted to the hospital where he breathed his last, inspite of giving necessary treatment. Therefore, the informant alleged that accused No.1 being the contractor who - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1809 CRL.P No. 6480 of 2022 had employed the deceased, accused No.2 being incharge of the building and accused Nos.3 and 4 being the supervisor of the site and building respectively and accused No.5 being the owner of the site are responsible for the death of the deceased, and have committed the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. Accordingly, the FIR in Cr.No.61/2022 came to be registered. The petitioners being accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. Since interim order of stay was granted, no investigation was undertaken by the police. 3. Heard Sri. Rajashekar S., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the materials on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that accused No.5 was the owner of the site. Accused No.1 was appointed by accused No.5 as he was Electrical and Plumbing Contractor, in turn accused No.1 appointed the deceased who was working on the 10th floor of the building. Unfortunately he slipped and fell down to the 3rd floor, as a result he sustained - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1809 CRL.P No. 6480 of 2022 injuries. Later, he died in the hospital. Accused No.5 being the owner of the site paid compensation of Rs.1,64,000/- as reported in this Court. 5. Learned counsel contended that accused Nos.2 and 3 being petitioners No.1 and 2 are said to be the incharge of the building and supervisor of the site respectively, they are also employees appointed by accused No.5. Admittedly, they were not the contractors who employed the deceased and they are not responsible to provide safety gears such as helmet or belt. Under such circumstances, petitioners No.1 and 2 being accused Nos.2 and 3 are not at all responsible for the offence in question. Section 304 of IPC is not applicable for the facts of the case. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that accused No.5 is the owner of the site, he appointed accused No.1 as Electrical and Plumbing Contractor, who in turn appointed the deceased to work on the 10th floor. Under such circumstances, accused No.5 is not entitled for any relief. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1809 CRL.P No. 6480 of 2022 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader also contended that accused Nos.2 and 3 were said to be working as incharge of the building and supervisor of the site. When such allegations are made, unless the investigation is undertaken, it cannot be said that they are not responsible for the death of the deceased. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 8. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is ‘Partly in Affirmative' for the following: R E A S O N S 9. It is alleged that accused No.5 is the owner of the site and the same is not disputed by him. It is the further contention of the complainant that accused No.5 appointed accused No.1 as Electrical and Plumbing Contractor, who in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1809 CRL.P No. 6480 of 2022 turn appointed the deceased who was working on 10th floor. Unfortunately he fell on the 3rd floor and sustained fatal injuries and later, died in the hospital while taking treatment. Therefore, the contention of accused No.5 / petitioner No.3 that he is not responsible for the death of the deceased cannot be accepted at this stage. It is to be investigated by the Investigating Officer and therefore, petitioner No.3 being accused No.5 is not entitled for any relief. 10. Accused Nos.2 and 3 being petitioners No.1 and 2 are said to be the incharge of the building and supervisor of the site respectively. Obviously they are appointed by accused No.5 and they are employees under accused No.5. Accused No.1 is the contractor who said to have employed the labourers. It cannot be said that accused Nos.2 and 3 committed negligence which resulted in the death of the deceased. There are no prima-facie materials against accused Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against them is liable to be quashed. 11. Accordingly, I answer the above point partly in affirmative and proceed to pass the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:1809 CRL.P No. 6480 of 2022
Decision
ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part. (ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.61 of 2022 of Kankanady Town Police Station, pending on the file of learned VII Additional JMFC Court, Mangaluru City, for the offence punishable under Section 304 read with 34 of IPC, against petitioners No.1 and 2 / accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed. (iii) The petition filed by petitioner No.3 / accused No.5 is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30 CT: BHK