Karnataka High Court
Pushpa Tangade vs State Of Karnataka on 6 August, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 24.07.2024
Pronounced on : 06.08.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4699 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
PUSHPA TANGADE
W/O VINOD NARASANNAVAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.31, DEVI NILAYA
MARUTHI LAYOUT
MARAGUNDANAHALLI MAIN ROAD
ANANDAPURA, T.C.PALYA
HALEHALLI, K.R.PURAM
BENGALURU - 560 036.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. SMT. BHARATHI
W/O MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.697,
26TH MAIN ROAD, 17TH CROSS,
J.P.NAGARA, 6TH STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
3. SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O H.BHOJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.697,
26TH MAIN ROAD, 17TH CROSS,
J.P.NAGARA, 6TH STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI G.J.SUNKAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH FIR INITIATED AGAINST HER IN
CR.NO.187 OF 2024 REGISTERED BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE
STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 338 AND 34 OF IPC, 1860
PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT DATED 26.03.2024 PENDING
BEFORE 41ST ADDL. CMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE CITY AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF
AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.07.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question a crime
in Crime No.187 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under
Sections 338, 304A and 34 of the IPC pending before the XLI
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. Heard Sri S. Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri P.Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri G.J. Sunkapur, learned
counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
Petitioner is accused No.3 working as Assistant Executive
Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited
('KPTCL' for short). Respondents 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to
as 'complainants' for easy reference) are the parents of the
deceased. An incident happens on 20-03-2024 when the son of
complainants was asked to climb up a transformer and clean it in
the KPTCL Sub-Station 66 KV (restricted area) at Manyata Tech
4
Park, Bengaluru. The son of the complainants fell from a height of 9
feet due to electric shock. Due to the incident, the whole body was
burnt severely. He was hospitalized and remained in the hospital
between 20-03-2024 to 26-03-2024 and succumbs to injuries on
26-03-2024. Initially, after the incident a complaint is registered
only for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 34 of the
IPC. After the death of the son of the complainants, the offence
under Section 304A was roped in. 5 accused are drawn into the
web of crime. Accused No.1 - Assistant Engineer; accused No.2 -
Contractor; accused No.3 the petitioner; accused Nos.4 and 5 -
shift assistants. The registration of crime against the petitioner has
driven him to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the petitioner is in no way responsible for
the accident as cleaning of transformer's work was entrusted to a
contractor. The contractor had engaged the son of the complainants
to clean the transformer and, therefore, except the contractor
nobody else can be held responsible is the submission of the
learned counsel. He would further contend that for the offence
5
under Section 304A of the IPC it requires rash and negligent act.
When the petitioner was not even present, no wrong doing can be
attributed to the petitioner. He would seek quashment of the entire
proceedings.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader
would contend that the matter is still at the stage of investigation.
It is the responsibility of all officers including the contractor to
provide safety kit to the person who is asked to climb up and clean
the transformer. Since no safety equipment was given, all officers
are answerable even though it is only the contractor who has
engaged the son of the complainants, who is now deceased. He
would seek dismissal of the petition. So does the learned counsel
appearing for the complainants.
6. The afore-narrated facts at this juncture lie in a narrow
compass. The son of the complainants due to adjunct poverty
joined a part time job with the contractor while studying 1st
semester of M.Sc at Bengaluru Central College. He was asked to
clean the transformer in KPTCL Sub-Station 66 KV. It is the
allegation that no safety equipments were even provided and the
6
victim was asked to climb up the transformer and clean it in bare
body or with bare hands. He incurs a huge shock which results in
severe burns all over the body and he was immediately admitted to
the hospital. In the hospital, prior to his death, his statement is
recorded. The statement assumes significance. It reads as follows:
"²æà ¸ÀĪÀÄAvÀ B.M. S/O ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 21 ªÀµÀð ªÁ¸À No.697, 26£ÉÃ
PÁæ¸ï J.P.£ÀUÀgÀ 6£Éà ºÀAvÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ .Mob.9742370519, 8147314229
F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ¸ÉAlæ¯ï PÁ¯ÉÃf£À°è §AiÉÆÃPɫĹÖç ªÉÆzÀ°£À ¸É«Ä¸ÀÖj£À°è «zÁå¨Ás å¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛãÉ
PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Ámïð mÉÊA PÉ®¸À PÀÆqÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É »ÃVgÀĪÁUÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ 20/03/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÁ mÉPï ¥ÁPïð £À°ègÀĪÀ KPTCL ¸ÉÖõÀ£À°è ºÉ®àgï
PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ J¯ÉQÖç¶AiÀÄ£ï PÉ®¸À C£ÀĨsÀªÀ«gÀĪÀÅ¢®è K£ÁzÀgÀÆ G¥ÀPÀgÀt
PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉýzÁUÀ JwÛ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É »ÃUÀÄgÀĪÁUÀ KPTCL ¸ÉÖõÀ£ï ¤¶zÀÞ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è
£À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀÄgÀQëvÀ G¥ÀPÀgÀt ¤ÃqÀzÉ 9 Cr JvÀÛgÀzÀ mÁæ£ïì ¥sÁªÀÄðgï ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤AvÀÄ
zÀƼÀÄ QèÃ£ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉýzÀÄÝ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀÄgÀQëvÀ G¥ÀPÀgÀt ¤qÀzÉ CªÀgÄÀ
QèÃ£ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉýzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ mÁæ£ïì ¥sÁªÀÄðgï ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤AvÀÄ QèÃ£ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ
£À£ÀUÉ «zÀÄåvï vÀUÀ° 9 Cr PɼÀUÉ ©¢ÝgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ±ÀnðUÉ ¨ÉAQ vÀUÀ° ¸ÀÄlÄÖ
ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CzÉà jÃw ¥ÁåAmï PÀÆqÀ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ £À£ÀUÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉAQ vÀUÀ° £À£Àß
JgÀqÀÄ PÉÊ ªÀÄÄR PÀÄwÛUÉ ¨sÁUÀ ºÉÆmÉÖ ¨sÁUÀ JzÉ ¨sÁUÀ ¸ÀÄlÖ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ CzÉà ¨É£ÄÀ ß
¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ vÀPÀët C°èzÀÝ PÉ®ªÀgÀÄ ºÉ¨Áâ¼À ¨Á妸ïÖ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ aQvÉìUÉ
zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20/03/2024 jAzÀ 26/03/2024 gÀªÉUÉ ¨Á妸ïÖ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è
aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ KPTCL ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæ §A¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ aQvÉìAiÀÄ
ªÉZÀѪÁUÀ° E£ÀÆìgÉ£ïì DUÀ° AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀÆ ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è F ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ: 26/03/2024
gÀAzÀÄ ¨Á妸ïÖ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è aQvÉì ªÉZÀÑ eÁ¹Û DVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ¢£À «PÉÆÖÃjAiÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ £À£ßÀ
vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. E°è£À ªÉÊzÀågÄÀ
aQvÉì ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. C£ÀªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁV ¤¶zÀÞ ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà G¥ÀPÀgÀt ¤qÀzÉ £À£ÀUÉ PÉ®¸À
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä w½¹ KPTCL £À ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ PÀæªÄÀ
dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤gÀvÀ ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. WÀl£É
£ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°èzÀÝ C¥ÀƪÀÀð AE UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀ «gÀÄ¥ÁPÀë, ¥ÀĵÀà, ¹¤AiÀÄgï C¢üPÁj ªÀĺÁzÉêÀ
£À£ÀUÉ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉýzÀ ªÀĺÀzÉÃªï ¸Áé«Ä gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÄÀ
dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ªÉÊzÁå¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
(N¢¹ PÉý PÉý¹ ¸Àj¬ÄzÉ)"
7
The son of the complainants narrates that he did not know how to
clean the transformer. Since he was working as a helper, he was
asked to climb up the transformer without any equipments and he
was forced to do so. This statement is given by the son of the
complainants before his death. It is also narrated that no safety
measures were taken or equipments were given to the son of the
complainants who was forced to carry on the work of cleaning the
transformer. Based upon the incident that happened on 20-03-2024
a complaint had been registered which had become a crime in
Crime No.187 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 338
and 34 of the IPC. After the death of the son of the complainants,
with the permission of the concerned Court, the offence under
Section 304A of the IPC is added.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would strenuously
contend that the petitioner being a higher officer in the cadre of
Assistant Executive Engineer cannot be held responsible for acts
committed by the contractor or other officers in the hierarchy below
the Assistant Executive Engineer. This submission is noted only to
be rejected. If the contractor has forced the cleaning job upon the
8
deceased, the petitioner would undoubtedly be responsible or
accountable. Such accountability cannot be washed away and the
officers of KPTCL cannot be left off the hook for the simple reason
that before asking the deceased to climb the transformer either the
power connection to the said transformer should have been
temporarily suspended or if such suspension was creating a
problem to the general public, complete safety equipments should
have been provided to the deceased. Both of which are not done in
the case at hand. The same swan song is sung by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that traditional employer employee
relationship does not exist between the petitioner, an officer of
KPTCL and the contractor or the deceased. These submissions do
not merit any consideration at this juncture.
8. At this stage, it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment
of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of MADHURI PATEL
v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH1. The High Court of Chhattisgarh
was considering a plea to quash the proceedings against a Junior
Engineer of the Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company
1
2021 SCC OnLine Chh.913
9
Limited. The status of the petitioner therein is identical to the
status of the petitioner in the case at hand. The offences alleged
are also similar. The High Court of Chhattisgarh holds as follows:
".... .... ....
9. The question as to whether the petitioner was
gross negligent or not in death of Reshamlal for the
purpose of Section 304A of the IPC, is a matter to be
considered during the course of trial on the basis of
evidence on record. At this stage even before framing of
charges on the basis of material available on record, it
cannot be held that there is no evidence on record
against the petitioner to connect him in the aforesaid
offences including offence under Section 304A of the IPC.
10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Syad
Akbar (supra) has held that where negligence is an essential
ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be established by
the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not negligence
merely based upon an error of judgment.
11. As such, the question of gross negligence, if
any, on the part of the petitioner has to be established by
the prosecution during the course of the trial. As such,
taking the entire material available on record, it cannot
be held that no offence under Section 304A, 287 and 337
of the IPC is made out against the petitioner."
(Emphasis supplied)
The petitioner before the High Court of Chhattisgarh was a Junior
Engineer of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company like
BESCOM. A deceased therein had received electrical burn injuries
when he was connecting electrical line in the transformer. The
10
deceased succumbed to injuries and died. Proceedings against the
Junior Engineer were permitted to continue for offences punishable
under Section 304A of the IPC. I am in complete agreement with
what is held by the Chhattisgarh High Court. There are plethora of
judgments rendered by different High Courts on the issue, some
confirming continuation of investigation or trial against the officers
of Electricity Department and some quashing.
9. The issue in the subject lis is with regard to the petitioner
being responsible or otherwise. It is trite law that negligence is to
be understood to be an omission to do something, which a
reasonable man guided upon the consideration of conduct of human
affairs would do, omits to do those reasonable affairs. Consideration
of negligence is different in civil and criminal law. Therefore, there
is death due to negligence. Who is responsible for the negligent act
is always a matter of investigation or trial as the case would be, as
existence of the duty to take care is the first and fundamental of
the ingredient of a criminal action brought on the basis of
negligence. Breach of such duty would lead to consequences flowing
from the action that happens due to such breach. Unfortunately for
11
the negligent act of officer of the Electricity Department, be it any
of the ESCOMS of KPTCL, innocent life of a student with bright
career is so casually lost. The life of a boy which is casually lost
cannot be buried holding no role on the part of the officer of the
Electricity Department. The officers need to be responsible and
accountable. It is high time that officers wake up, become diligent
and put their effort to obviate such instances being repeated overall
again, as a citizen cannot bear the repetition of such negligence,
leading to death of lives. Therefore, in the considered view of this
Court, this is not a case where investigation in Crime No.187 of
2024 needs to be quashed. The matter requires investigation and
investigation is a must in such cases.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition stands rejected.
(ii) It is made clear that the observations made in the
course of the order are only for the purpose of
consideration of the case of the petitioner under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or
influence the investigation or proceedings that would
be initiated against him.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:SS
