Madras High Court
Babu vs State Rep.By on 20 April, 2022
Crl.O.P.No.5194 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Crl.O.P.No.5194 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.2995 of 2019
1.Babu
2.Venkatesan ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.State Rep.by
Inspector of Police
T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station
Chennai 600
Crime No.973 of 2018.
2.Nandhu ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition had been filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, praying to call for the entire records in respect of FIR in Crime
No.973 of 2018 dated 14.09.2018 on the file of the Respondent Police and
quash the same against the Petitioners.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5194 of 2019
For Petitioners : Mr.Kalaivanan
for Mr.P.Karthik
For Respondents : Mr.R.Vinothraja for R1
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
This Petition had been filed to call for the entire records in
respect of FIR in Crime No.973 of 2018 dated 14.09.2018 on the file of the
Respondent Police and quash the same against the Petitioners.
2. When the case came up for hearing on the previous occasion,
the learned Counsel for the Petitioners sought adjournment. Hence, the case
was adjourned to 20.04.2022. Today, also the learned Counsel representing
the counsel for the Petitioners seeks adjournment.
3. This Court earlier on 08.04.2022 raised the question of
maintainability, regarding quashing of FIR. The relevant portion of the said
order reads as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5194 of 2019
“When the case came up for hearing, the learned
counsel representing counsel on record sought adjournment.
2. From the records, it is seen that the notice was
sent to the defacto complainant on 26.02.2019, at the time of
admission had been returned. Subsequently, no notice was
taken and the affidavit of service also not filed.
3. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the
case is arising out of fatal accident in the construction site in
the local limits of Tiruverkadu Police Station. Therefore, the
Tiruverkadu Police had registered the FIR in Cr. No.973 of
2018 against the Petitioners who are the Builder and
Supervisor of the site. Therefore, the Petitioners had
approached this Court to quash the FIR.
4. Notice not served on the defacto complainant.
At the same time, if the FIR is quashed, it amounts to
miscarriage of justice by denying the compensation to the legal
heirs of the deceased. The legal heirs can seek compensation
only if there is FIR regarding the accident. If the FIR is
quashed, the legal heirs of the deceased cannot claim
compensation. If the accident had occurred in the Public
Place like Road or parking bay, the Insurance Company is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5194 of 2019
liable to pay compensation. Here, the site of the accident is
construction site. Whether the Insurance Company is liable to
pay compensation or not and whether the labourers were
insured are disputed facts which cannot be gone into at this
stage.
5. Anyhow, for ensuring relief to legal heirs of
deceased, FIR is mandatory. Under those circumstances, the
maintainability of this petition itself is doubtful. Hence,
learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) is requested to
clarify regarding the compensation by 18.04.2022.
Call on 18.04.2022. Interim stay already granted by this
Court on 26.02.2019, is extended till then.”
4. As per the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
Judgment of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors,
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, if this FIR is
quashed, the valuable right of the legal heirs of the deceased, who had
succumbed to injury due to the accident, will be lost.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5194 of 2019
5. Considering the right of the legal heirs to claim
compensation for the death of the person, who lost his life in the
accident, for which, an FIR is mandatory, the request/prayer of the
Petitioners herein, cannot be entertained. Therefore, the extraordinary
power of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot be
exercised. Hence, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the
Investigating Officer to proceed as per law. Consequently, connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.04.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dna
To
1.The Inspector of Police
T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station
Chennai 600
Crime No.973 of 2018.
2.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.5194 of 2019
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP., J.
dna
Crl.O.P.No.5194 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.No.2995 of 2019
20.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
