Bombay High Court
Ahmed Raza S/O Mohammad Mukhtar ... vs State Of Mha. Thr. Pso Midc ... on 16 November, 2021
Bench: M.S. Sonak, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
J-apl1224.21.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) No.1224 OF 2021
Ahmed Raza s/o. Mohammad Mukhtar Ahmed,
Age : 36 years,
R/o. Plot No.224, Near Sahu Kirana Store,
Mahendra Nagar, Nagpur,
District Nagpur. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
State of Maharashtra,
Through its P.S.O. MIDC, Butibori,
Nagpur, District Nagpur. : NON-APPLICANT
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr. Y.J. Sheikh, Advocate for applicant.
Ms. M.A. Barabde, APP for the non-applicant.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
Pushpa V. Ganediwala, JJ.
DATE : 16th November, 2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : M.S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard Mr.Y.J. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant,
and Ms. M.A. Barabde learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-
applicant.
2. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, rule is made returnable forthwith.
J-apl1224.21.odt 2/4
3. This is a petition for quashing of First Information Report
No.228/2021, registered with Police Station M.I.D.C., Butibori, District
Nagpur.
4. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicant, at the very
outset, has quite fairly stated that this may not be a case for quashing of
the F.I.R. in his entirety but rather, this is a case where at the highest,
an offense under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code could have
been registered assuming without admitting that the allegations are
true. He refers to the ground (c) of his application wherein similar
contention has been raised.
5. Learned A.P.P submits that this is a matter which can be
agitated before the Sessions Court once the charge-sheet is filed. She
submits that there are several provisions in the Code of Criminal
Procedure based on which such a prayer can be made or considered.
6. Although there is merit in the submission of learned A.P.P., in the
peculiar facts of the present case, we feel that no useful purpose would
be served by permitting the prosecution to file a charge-sheet under
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code because we are quite satisfied that
even if all the allegations in the F.I.R. are accepted as entirely correct,
the offense under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code has not been
made out.
J-apl1224.21.odt 3/4
7. In the F.I.R. it is alleged that the applicant, who is an
employee of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
(in short, "MSEDCL"), a public sector undertaking, required the
deceased to undertake some work on the DP line without providing him
sufficient safety gears. Unfortunately, this employee of the contractor
died of electrocution while discharging his work.
8. Now, even if all the allegations in the F.I.R. are taken as
entirely correct, we do not feel that an offense under Section 304 of the
Indian Penal Code i.e. of culpable homicidal not amounting to murder
can be said to have been made out. The allegations, properly relate to
the offense under Section 304-A which deals with causing death by
negligence. Besides, there is material in this case that even the
employee of the contractor, who unfortunately died of electrocution was
prima facie qualified to undertake such works and this is not a case of
some stranger being required to undertake such work.
9. Having cumulative regard to all such circumstances, we
partly allow this application and we quash the reference in the F.I.R. to
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code but sustain the impugned F.I.R. by
substituting the offense under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code
therein.
J-apl1224.21.odt 4/4
10. This application is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
There shall be no order for costs.
(Pushpa V. Ganediwala,J.) (M.S. Sonak, J.)
Wadode
