Bombay High Court
Shobhabai Januji Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ... on 17 September, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande, Amit B. Borkar
Judgment 1 apl1112.18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1112/2018
Shobhabai Januji Pawar,
Aged about 44 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o. Mohan Heights, 9th Floor, Flat No. 902,
Near Golden Park, Kalyan, District Thane
.... APPLICANT(S)
// VERSUS //
1] State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O., P.S. Patur,
Tah. Patur, District Akola
2] Pritam Dharmaji Thakre,
Aged about 35 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Bhalrajura, Tah. Patur,
District Akola
.... NON-APPLICANT(S)
*******************************************************************
Shri V.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant(s)
Shri V.A. Thakare, APP for the non-applicant/State
*******************************************************************
CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.
SEPTEMBER 17, 2021
JUDGMENT : (PER:- AMIT B. BORKAR, J.)
1] Heard.
2] RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
ANSARI
Judgment 2 apl1112.18.odt
3] By this application under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the applicant is challenging registration of F.I.R.
No. 253/2018 for the offences punishable under Section 304A of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Electricity Act.
4] The first information report came to be registered against the
applicant with the accusations that the niece of the non-applicant no. 2 -
informant while doing the work of agriculture labour, was electrocuted
and died on the spot. It is alleged that it is due to the gross negligence on
the part of the applicant the niece of the non-applicant no. 2 was
electrocuted. It is alleged that the applicant has not taken proper care
which resulted into the death of the niece of the non-applicant no. 2. The
applicant has therefore challenging registration of the first information
report by filing the present application.
5] This Court on 06/12/2018 issued notices for final disposal to
the non-applicants and protected the applicant by directing that no
coercive steps shall be taken against the applicant. The non-applicant
no. 1 - Investigating Agency, in pursuance of the notice issued by this
Court, has filed reply stating that the Investigating Officer has carried out
the investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses. It is stated
ANSARI
Judgment 3 apl1112.18.odt
that the Investigating Agency recorded the statement of Prakash Jadhav
in whose field the deceased had gone for doing the agricultural work. It is
stated that the land is owned by the applicant. It is further stated that it is
due to the negligence act on the part of the applicant the niece of the
non-applicant no. 2 expired.
6] The record shows that the non-applicant no. 2 is served with
the notice of this application. Inspite of service, the non-applicant no. 2
has not appeared either personally or through Advocate.
7] Learned advocate for the applicant submitted that the
applicant is an ordinary resident of District Thane and the land in
question in which the deceased died is in possession of Prakash Ramji
Jadhav. It is submitted that the deceased was employee of Prakash Jadhav
and had no connection with the applicant or his field. It is submitted that
there is dispute between the applicant and Prakash Jadhav as Prakash
Jadhav wants to purchase the land of the applicant.
8] Having carefully considered the allegations in the first
information report, the material produced by the applicant and the reply
filed by the non-applicant no. 1, it appears that the agricultural land of
the applicant is in possession of Tarachand Kashiram Chavhan and the
ANSARI
Judgment 4 apl1112.18.odt
applicant is not actively involved into the day-to-day affairs of the said
agricultural land. It appears that the deceased was neither working for the
applicant nor with the person in possession of the land of the applicant.
It appears that the said deceased was employee of the adjoining owner.
The applicant is an ordinary resident of Thane District and visits the said
land once or twice in a year.
9] Perusal of Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code shows that
it is necessary that the death should have been caused by direct result of
rash and negligent act of the accused and the act must be proximate and
efficient cause without intervention of another's negligence. Simple lack
of care which is sufficient to constitute the civil liability is not sufficient
to attract criminal liability under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.
The parameters for attracting criminal liability are stringent than the
parameters for attracting civil liability. From the material placed on
record, we are satisfied that the death of the deceased was not direct result
of rash and negligent act of the applicant and there is no proximity or
efficient cause for the death of the deceased. Hence, we are of the
opinion that continuance of the present proceedings against the applicant
would amount to abuse of process of the Court.
ANSARI
Judgment 5 apl1112.18.odt
10] Hence, the following order:-
F.I.R. No. 253/2018 registered with the non-applicant no. 1
- Police Station against the applicant for the offences
punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code &
Section 135 of the Electricity Act is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE)
ANSARI
