Mohan Das Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3908 Kant

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No.7560/2021

BETWEEN

1.   MOHAN DAS SHETTY,
     S/O LATE K DEJOO SHETTY,
     77 YEARS,
     "OWNER OF MPP TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD.,
     ANTHARASANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
     TUMUKURU TOWN,
     TUMUKURU - 572 106.

2.   SURESH REDDY,
     S/O SRI. HULEPPA,
     52 YEARS,
     GENERAL MANAGER OF MPP
     TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD.,
     ANTHARASANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
     TUMUKURU TOWN,
     TUMUKURU - 572 106.

3.   BALAKRISHNA,
     S/O LATE SUNDARA BHANDARY,
     43 YEARS,
     "HR OF MPP TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD.,
     ANTHARASANAHALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
     TUMUKURU TOWN,
     TUMUKURU - 572 106.
                                           ... PETITIONERS

[BY SRI.S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE]
                              2




AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
      TUMKUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
      TUMKUR TOWN CIRCLE,
      TUMAKURU - 572 101.

2.    SMT.NALINA,
      W/O LATE MANJUNATHA H D,
      32 YEARS,
      HIREKODATHAKAL,
      KPRA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK,
      TUMAKURU - 572 104.
                                              ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI.V.G.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
    SMT.YASHODA P.K., HCGP FOR R1]

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN FIR IN
CR.NO.126/2021 DATED 10.09.2021 OF TUMKURU TOWN POLICE
STATION, TUMAKURU CIRCLE, TUMAKURU REGISTERED FOR AN
OFFENCE P/U/S. 304(A) AND 34 OF IPC AND PENDING ON THE
COURT OF 2nd ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) AND JMFC
TUMAKURU.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

proceedings in Crime No.126/2021 registered for offences

punishable under Section 304A read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri. S.G. Bhagavan, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners, Smt. Yashoda K.P., learned HCGP appearing

for respondent No.1 and Sri. V.G. Rajendra, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on

record.

3. The petitioners are the owners of one M.P.P.

Technologies Private Limited. Respondent No.2 is the wife of an

employee, who died in an accident that occurred in the factory

premises owned by the petitioners. One H.D. Manjunath, a

contract worker, who was performing certain jobs of cleaning of

the roof of the factory on 05.09.2021, fell down and sustained

injuries and succumbed to the same on 10.09.2021. The

Inspector of factories, who visited the premises also recorded the

incident and also noticed the fact that family of the deceased

had been adequately compensated. It is for that reason, no

proceedings under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 was

initiated by the Inspector of factories against the petitioners.

4. After all the aforesaid facts and the incident, a

complaint is registered by the wife of the deceased on

10.09.2021 alleging that the reason for death of her husband

deceased was an unkept factory premises with no safety

measures. The complaint becomes an FIR for offence punishable

under Section 304A of IPC. It is germane to notice Section 304A,

it reads as follows:

"[304A. Causing death by negligence.-- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.]"

Section 304A of the IPC has two components:

Causing death either by rash or a negligent act.

Neither rash nor negligent act can be attributed to the

petitioners for the unfortunate incident of the deceased dying

due to an accident that occurred when he fell down while

painting the roof of the factory. The Apex Court in the case of

AMBALAL D. BHATT V. STATE OF GUJARAT1, has held as

follows:

"10. It appears to us that in a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of a rash or negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death.

If that were so, the acquittal of the appellant for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would itself have been an answer and we would have then examined to what extent additional evidence of his acquittal would have to be allowed, but since that is not the criteria, we have to determine whether the appellant's act in giving only one batch number to all the four lots manufactured on November 12, 1962, in preparing Batch No. 211105, was the cause of deaths and whether those deaths were a direct consequence of the appellants' act, that is, whether the appellants' act is the direct result of a rash and negligent act and that act was the proximate and efficient cause

(1973) 3 SCC 525

without the intervention of another's negligence. As observed by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap [(1902) 4 Bom LR 679] the act causing the deaths "must be the causa causans; it is not enough that it may have been the cause sine qua non". This view has been adopted by this Court in several decisions. In Kurban Hussein Mohammedali Rangwala v. State of Maharashtra [(1965) 2 SCR 622] the accused who had manufactured wet paints without a licence was acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A because it was held that the mere fact that he allowed the burners to be used in the same room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, even though it would be a negligent act, would not be enough to make the accused responsible for the fire which broke out. The cause of the fire was not merely the presence of the burners within the room in which varnish and turpentine were stored, though this circumstance was indirectly responsible for the fire which broke out, but was also due to the overflowing of froth out of the barrels. In Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(1968) 2 SCR 515] the accused who was driving a car only with a learner's licence without a trainer by his

side, had injured a person. It was held that that by itself was not sufficient to warrant a conviction under Section 304-A. It would be different if it can be established as in the case of Bhalchandra alias Bapu v. State of Maharashtra [(1968) 3 SCR 766] that deaths and injuries caused by the contravention of a prohibition in respect of the substances which are highly dangerous as in the case of explosives in a cracker factory which are considered to be of a highly hazardous and dangerous nature having sensitive composition where even friction or percussion could cause an explosion, that contravention would be the causa causans."

The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has delineated

Section 304(A) of IPC to hold that unless either of the

components i.e., rash or negligent be present in a given case,

Section 304(A) of the IPC would not get attracted. In the light of

the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the judgment of the

Apex Court, the petition deserves to succeed.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii. Proceedings pending in Crime No.126/2021 before

the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C.,

Tumkur stands quashed qua the petitioners.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SJK