Telangana High Court
Pur Energy Private Limited vs The State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2024
THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5627 OF 2022
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in FIR No.93 of 2022 on the file of P.S.Nizamabad III Town, Nizamabad District. The offences alleged against him are under Section 304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')
2. The facts of the case are that on 20.04.2022, the complainant-2nd respondent gave complaint to the police stating that himself, his wife, two sons and parents are residing in Subash Nagar, Nizamabad. On 16.09.2020 he purchased a two wheeler electric vehicle in the name of his friend and every day he used to remove the vehicle battery and recharge the same in the house during the night hours. As usual on 19.04.2022 mid night his younger son Kalyan brought their electric vehicle and kept the battery in the hall and connected to electric socket for charging; that his son along with his parents slept in the hall and he slept in the bed room. In the early hours i.e., on 19.04.2022 at about 4.00 a.m., he heard blasting sound, immediately he rushed into the hall 2 and found the electric vehicle battery was blasted and flames spread all over the hall. Immediately he along with his wife took away his son and his parents outside. All of them sustained severe burn injuries. Immediately, the complainant shifted his parents and son to Medicover Hospital and admitted them for treatment. They were also admitted in hospital. At about 11.30p.m., as the condition of his father was critical, the doctors advised them to shift him to Hyderabad for better treatment. Immediately his younger brother while shifting his father to Hyderabad, on the way he took his last breathe at 4.00 a.m.; his younger son and wife were taking treatment in the Hospital. As such, he requested to take action against the proprietor and dealer of PURE Etrance Plus Electric Motor Cycle Company, who manufactured and supplied crumbling battery and responsible for the death of his father and the burn injuries suffered by them. Basing on the said complaint the police registered a case under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC vide FIR No.93 of 2022.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is a reputed company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act. At the time of delivery of vehicle a user manual is also provided to the customer which contains the guide for usage of vehicle and tips for charging, usage, storage, warnings 3 and danger signs with respect to the battery. Similarly a user manual was also provided to the first owner. It is further contended that the manual consists of precautions and tips for handling, charging and storage of batteries in quite comprehensive manner along with images and diagrams in order to enable the customers understand the details without any difficulty. The overcharging of battery or not adhering to the battery safety instructions and any amendments because of overcharging may lead to severe damage to the battery. His further contention is that the averments in the complaint itself clearly shows that the battery was charged over night and due to overcharging only, the incident occurred and there is no negligence on the part of petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kapur Vs State of Rajasthan 1, Thakur Singh Vs State of Punjab 2, State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal 3, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia and 1 MANU/SC/0659/2012 2 (2003) 9 SCC 208 3 1995 Supp (1) SCC 335 4 Others Vs Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others 4, Roy V.D Vs State of Kerala 5 and R.P.Kapur Vs State of Punjab 6.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that if the allegations in the complaint itself is also accepted there is no negligence on the part of petitioner and it is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. His further contention is that the complainant is not the owner of vehicle and he is using the vehicle of others and did not follow the user manual and the user manual is handed over to the owner of vehicle. Therefore, it is clear abuse of process of law, as such, prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
6. Heard Sri Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
7. Though notice is served on the 2nd respondent, none appeared on his behalf.
4 1988 Crl.LJ 853 5 2001 Crl.L.J 165 6 1960 Crl.L.J.1239 5
8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the case is at the stage of investigation and charge sheet is not yet filed, the police has to enquire whether there is any manufacturing defect in the battery. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the petition.
9. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material placed on record, it is seen that the only contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant is not the owner of vehicle and he has not followed the user manual. Except the FIR there is no material on record to conclude whether it is the negligence of complainant or the petitioner and investigation is still in progress. The police have not collected any material evidence to show that whether the complainant or the petitioner on whose negligence, the incident occurred. First of all the investigating agency has to verify whether there is any manufacturing defect in the said battery which is still not known and the trial is at the initial stage. As such, at this stage, it cannot be said that the son of complainant has not followed user manual. However, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the 6 complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offences as alleged by the Police.
10. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Surendra Kori 7, wherein, in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:
"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."
11. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), this Court does not find any merit in this criminal petition to quash the proceedings in FIR No.93 of 2022 against the petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155 7
12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________ K. SUJANA, J Date :29.04.2024 Rds