Rajpal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and others

Judgment

1. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed by the applicant, Rajpal Singh, seeking quashing of the charge-sheet dated 17.08.2020 submitted in Criminal Case No. 2654 of 2020 under Sections 304A IPC and 56 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, Police Station Betalghat, District Nainital, as well as the cognizance/summoning order dated

17.11.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, and all proceedings arising therefrom.

The factual background of the case, as narrated in the FIR lodged by respondent no.3, Kheem Singh, is that on 25.05.2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the family of the informant was quarantined at the Primary School, Talli Sethi, Betalghat. It is alleged that the applicant, Rajpal Singh, who was posted as Rajasva Up-Nirikshak (Patwari) of the area, had been informed about the poor condition of the quarantine centre and the presence of wild grass and forest area. Yet, no action was taken to shift the family to a safer location. Criminal Misc. Application No.17of 2021, Rajpal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others - 1 Ashish Naithani J.

3. The informant’s niece, aged about six years, was bitten by a snake in the early hours of 25.05.2020, and despite attempts to contact the applicant, there was no response. The child was taken to the hospital with the help of the previous area patwari, but she succumbed to the snake bite. Based on these allegations, FIR No. 01/2020 was registered under Sections 188, 269, 270, 304 IPC and 56 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is contended that the applicant, as Patwari, had no role in managing the quarantine centre, which was the responsibility of the Gram Pradhan and the Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari. It is submitted that in fact, FIR No. 02/2020 was also lodged against Umesh Joshi, Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, and Karan Singh, Assistant Teacher, who were in charge of the quarantine centre, they have been charge-sheeted separately. The applicant’s suspension and departmental proceedings have been challenged and responded to in due course.

5. The learned counsel further contends that the entire allegations, even if taken at face value, do not make out an offence under Section 304A IPC, as there is no direct or proximate nexus between the alleged act of the applicant and the unfortunate death of the child. It is argued that the applicant was neither present at the spot nor in a position of direct supervisory control over the quarantine centre. The applicant has an unblemished service record since 1998 and has been made a scapegoat merely on the basis of conjecture and presumption.

6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the application, submitting the material collected during investigation, including the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., supports the prosecution’s case. It is contended that the Criminal Misc. Application No.17of 2021, Rajpal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others - 2 Ashish Naithani J. applicant was the revenue officer responsible for the area and was aware of the unsafe condition of the quarantine centre. The State argues that the applicant’s alleged neglect of duty amounts to gross negligence under Section 304A IPC, as the death of the minor girl was a direct result of his failure to act despite warnings.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is necessary to examine whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose the commission of an offence under Section 304A IPC or Section 56 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, and whether the prosecution of the applicant amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

8. Section 304-A IPC applies when death is caused by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. It is well settled that for an offence under Section 304A IPC, there must be a direct, proximate, and causal link between the alleged act or omission and the death. Mere negligence or dereliction in a general sense, without a specific act or omission directly causing death, is insufficient.

9. In the present case, the core allegation is that the applicant, as the Patwari, failed to take action on complaints regarding the unsafe condition of the quarantine centre. However, the material placed on record, including the guidelines issued by the State Government, indicates that the responsibility for maintaining and managing quarantine centres was primarily entrusted to the Gram Pradhan and Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, not the applicant. The applicant's role as a revenue officer, though important in land-related matters, did not extend to direct supervision of quarantine facilities or their upkeep.

10. The filing of a separate FIR (No. 02/2020) and chargesheet against Umesh Joshi, Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari, and Karan Singh, Assistant Teacher, further underscores that the primary responsibility for Criminal Misc. Application No.17of 2021, Rajpal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others - 3 Ashish Naithani J. the quarantine centre lay with them. The applicant’s arrest and prosecution, therefore, appear to be based on assumptions rather than specific, proximate acts of negligence.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, has held that to fasten criminal liability under Section 304A IPC, there must be gross negligence or recklessness of such a degree that it can be said to be a crime against the State and deserving of punishment. A mere error of judgment or an administrative lapse, without more, cannot attract criminal liability.

12. The State, while emphasizing the applicant's alleged knowledge of the unsafe conditions, does not cite any direct act or omission by the applicant that can be said to have proximately caused the death. The evidence, as stated, consists of statements of family members and other witnesses who merely allege inaction or absence of the applicant. Still, no specific material demonstrates that his action or inaction directly resulted in the fatal snake bite.

13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has clearly laid down that where the allegations in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not disclose a cognizable offence, the FIR and consequent proceedings can be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court. This case squarely falls within the said category.

14. Furthermore, the invocation of Section 56 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, against the applicant appears to be misplaced, as no material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the applicant wilfully disobeyed any specific lawful order made under the Act.

15. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations against the applicant do not disclose the commission of any offence under Section 304A IPC or Section 56 of Criminal Misc. Application No.17of 2021, Rajpal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others - 4 Ashish Naithani J. the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to harassment and an abuse of the process of law. ORDER The application is allowed. The charge-sheet dated

17.08.2020 submitted in Criminal Case No. 2654 of 2020 under Sections 304A IPC and 56 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, Police Station Betalghat, District Nainital, the order of cognizance dated 17.11.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Nainital, and all proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. NR/ (Ashish Naithani J.) 02.06.2025 Criminal Misc. Application No.17of 2021, Rajpal Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others - 5 Ashish Naithani J.