Madras High Court

Mathivanan vs State Rep. on 29 March, 2023

                                                                  Crl OP Nos.22124 and 22125 / 2019

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED: 29.03.2023

                                                     CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN


                                        Crl.O.P.Nos.22124 and 22125 of 2019
                                                        and
                                        Crl.M.P. Nos.11465 and 11467 of 2019



                     1.Mathivanan                                 ... Petitioner in
                                                             Crl.O.P.No.22124 of 2019
                     2.Dinakaran                                  ... Petitioner in
                                                             Crl.O.P.No.22125 of 2019


                                                      Versus


                     1.State Rep., by
                       Inspector of Police,
                       Udumalpet Police Station
                       Tiruppur District.


                     2. Kannan (deceased)


                     3.K.Maliga
                       w/o (late) Kannan

                     (R3 suo moto impleadded as
                     per order dated 14.03.2023 in

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                     1/12
                                                                     Crl OP Nos.22124 and 22125 / 2019

                     Crl.O.P.Nos. 22124 and 22125
                     of 2019 and Crl.M.P.Nos.
                     11465 and 11467 of 219)
                                                                    ... Respondents in both

Criminal Original Petitions

COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.500 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Udumalpet and quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.500 of 2017 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Udumalpet.

For Petitioners : Mr.K.V.Sridharan in both Criminal Original Petitions

For R1 : Mr. S. Balaji, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) in both Criminal Original Petitions

For R2 : Notice not ready

For R3 : Mr.A.J.Mohamed Kassim in both Criminal Original Petitions

COMMON ORDER

The petitions have been filed to quash the final report in

C.C.No.500 of 2017 for the offence under Section 304 - A I.P.C.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP Nos.22124 and 22125 / 2019

2. It is alleged in the final report that the accused were employed

as Manager and Supervisor in a company called G.T.N. Enterprises Ltd.;

they had allowed the deceased to operate the carding machine and to do

cider job without proper training and adequate safety measures; that as

the deceased attempted to repair the machine; her dress got caught in the

machine wheel and she was pulled to the machine; that she suffered head

injury and later succumbed to the injury. The petitioners were thus

charged for the offence under Section 304 – A IPC.

3.Mr.K.V.Sridharan, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the allegations in the final report do not attract the

offences under Section 304-A I.P.C; that there is no material in the

impugned final report to show that the petitioners were responsible for

the deceased to work in the carding machine; that the occurrence was not

due to the act of the petitioners; that there is no allegation in the

impugned final report to show that the petitioners were guilty of gross

negligence.

4.Mr.S.Balaji, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

appearing for the first respondent submitted that there are allegations to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP Nos.22124 and 22125 / 2019

show that the petitioners are guilty of the alleged offences and hence,

he prayed for the dismissal of the quash petition.

5.The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant/3rd respondent

reiterated the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate

(Crl.Side) and submitted that the petitioners are guilty of the offences

since they are the Manager and Supervisor respectively and they are the

persons who assigned duty and that the final report cannot be quashed at

the initial stage.

6.This Court on reading of the impugned final report finds that the

allegations against the petitioners are that they are Manager and

Supervisor respectively in the company. The deceased had attempted to

repair a carding machine, without taking proper safety measures.

As a result of which, she sustained injuries and succumbed. The reading

of the final report and the statements of witnesses shows that the

deceased attempted to repair the carding machine. While doing so, it is

stated that a portion of a Chudidar was entangled in the wheels of the

machine, as a result of which, she was pulled to the machine

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP Nos.22124 and 22125 / 2019

and sustained injuries. The statements of the witnesses and all the

witnesses which are identical in nature reads as follows:

“me;j bkrpdpy; ntiy bra;a[k; gthdp mij ghh;jj; Jk; vyf;hprpad; kw;Wk; gpl;lh;

                                    cjtp       ,y;yhky;      jhnd       bkrpid          rhp
                                    bra;af;TlhJ           vd;W       nkndIh;        kw;Wk;

R{g;gh;itrh; mwpt[iu bfhLj;jpUe;Jk;. gthdp mij jhnd rhpbra;a epidj;J me;j bkrpdpy; ntiy bra;jnghJ. Gthdp mzpe;jpUe;j gr;ir fyh; Rojhhpd; lhg;gpd; fPH; gFjp nkw;go bkrpdpd; gy;rf;fuj;jpy; gl;L gthdpia Jzpa[ld; Rw;wp cs;ns ,Gj;j nghJ gthdpapd; jiy bkrpdpy; gl;L gthdp kaf;fk; mile;J. gthdp mzpe;jpUe;j Jzp fGj;ij ,Wf;fp fGj;jpy; fhak;gl;lJ/'' The above statements would show that it is a case of an accident.

Though, there is a vague allegation that the proper safety measures were

not made by the petitioners, there is nothing in the impugned final report

as to what safety measures were not taken by the petitioners.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP Nos.22124 and 22125 / 2019

7.Be that as it may. The statements of the witnesses suggest that

the deceased had attempted to repair the machine on her own without

taking the services of electrician and fitter, contrary to the instructions

given by the petitioners. The materials show that the petitioners had

given proper instructions to the employees. That apart, the manner in

which the alleged occurrence reveals that the petitioners were not the

causa causans (i.e.,) immediate cause for the accident.

In this regard, the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sushil

Ansal vs. State Through Central Bureau of Investigation reported in

(2014) 6 SCC 173 would directly apply to the facts of the case.

The relevant portions of the said Judgment are extracted below:

“81.Suffice it to say that this Court has in Kurban Hussein's case accepted in unequivocal terms the correctness of the proposition that criminal liability under Section 304 – A of the I.P.C., shall arise only if the prosecution proves that the death of the victim was the result of a rash or negligent act of the accused and that such act was the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another person's negligence.

A subsequent decision of this Court in Suleman Rahiman https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP Nos.22124 and 22125 / 2019

Mulani vs. State of Maharasthra has once again approved the view taken in Omkar Ramprathap case that the act of the accused must be proved to be the causa causans and not simply a causa sine qua non for the death of the victim in a case under Section 304 – A I.P.C.,. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Rustom Sherior Irani v.State of Maharashtra, Bhalchandra v.State of Mahrashtra, Kishan Chan v.State of Haryana, S.N.Hussain v.State of A.P., Ambalal D.Bhatt v.State of Gujarat and Jacob Mathew case. ”

“82. To sum up : for an offence under Section 304 – A to be proved it is not only necessary to establish that the accused was either rash or grossly negligent but also that such rashness or gross negligence was the causa causans that resulted in the death of the victim.

“83.As to what is meant by causa causans we may gainfully refer to Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition) which defines that expression as under:

“Causa causans – The immediate cause; the last link in the chain of causation.”

The Advance Law Lexicon edited by Justice Chandrachud, former Chief Justice of India defines causa causans as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP Nos.22124 and 22125 / 2019

“Causa causans – The immediate cause as opposed to a remote cause; the 'last link in the chain of causation'; the real effective cause of damage.”

84.The expression “proximate cause” is defined in the 5th edition of Black's Law Dictionary as under:

“Proximate cause – That which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces injury and without which the result would not have occurred. Wisiniewski v.Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., A2d at p. 748. That which is nearest in the order of responsible causation. That which stands next in causation to the effect, not necessarily in time or space but in causal relation. The proximate cause of an injury is the primary or moving cause, or that which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the accident could not have happened, if the injury be one which might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural consequence of the wrongful act. An injury or damage is proximately caused by an act, or a failure to act, whenever it appears from the evidence

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP Nos.22124 and 22125 / 2019

in the case, that the act or omission played a substantial part in bringing about or actually causing the injury or damage; and that the injury or damage was either a direct result or a reasonably probable consequence of the act or omission.”

9.In any event, even assuming there was a negligence, there is

nothing in the impugned final report would show that the petitioners

were guilty of gross negligence, in order to prosecute them for the

offences under Section 304 – A IPC.

10.For the above reasons, the impugned final report against the

petitioners is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Criminal Original

Petitions are allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous

Petitions are closed.

11.The learned counsel submits on instructions that the petitioners

have on humanitarian grounds volunteered to pay a compensation of a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the third respondent, who is the mother of the

victim within four weeks from today.