Pur Energy Private Limited vs The State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 1758 Tel

Telangana High Court

Pur Energy Private Limited vs The State Of Telangana on 29 April, 2024

            THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA



            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5627 OF 2022

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the

petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in FIR

No.93 of 2022 on the file of P.S.Nizamabad III Town, Nizamabad

District. The offences alleged against him are under Section 304-A

and 337 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC')

2. The facts of the case are that on 20.04.2022, the

complainant-2nd respondent gave complaint to the police stating

that himself, his wife, two sons and parents are residing in Subash

Nagar, Nizamabad. On 16.09.2020 he purchased a two wheeler

electric vehicle in the name of his friend and every day he used to

remove the vehicle battery and recharge the same in the house

during the night hours. As usual on 19.04.2022 mid night his

younger son Kalyan brought their electric vehicle and kept the

battery in the hall and connected to electric socket for charging;

that his son along with his parents slept in the hall and he slept in

the bed room. In the early hours i.e., on 19.04.2022 at about 4.00

a.m., he heard blasting sound, immediately he rushed into the hall

and found the electric vehicle battery was blasted and flames

spread all over the hall. Immediately he along with his wife took

away his son and his parents outside. All of them sustained severe

burn injuries. Immediately, the complainant shifted his parents

and son to Medicover Hospital and admitted them for treatment.

They were also admitted in hospital. At about 11.30p.m., as the

condition of his father was critical, the doctors advised them to

shift him to Hyderabad for better treatment. Immediately his

younger brother while shifting his father to Hyderabad, on the way

he took his last breathe at 4.00 a.m.; his younger son and wife

were taking treatment in the Hospital. As such, he requested to

take action against the proprietor and dealer of PURE Etrance Plus

Electric Motor Cycle Company, who manufactured and supplied

crumbling battery and responsible for the death of his father and

the burn injuries suffered by them. Basing on the said complaint

the police registered a case under Section 304-A and 337 of IPC

vide FIR No.93 of 2022.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

petitioner is a reputed company registered under the provisions of

the Companies Act. At the time of delivery of vehicle a user

manual is also provided to the customer which contains the guide

for usage of vehicle and tips for charging, usage, storage, warnings

and danger signs with respect to the battery. Similarly a user

manual was also provided to the first owner. It is further

contended that the manual consists of precautions and tips for

handling, charging and storage of batteries in quite comprehensive

manner along with images and diagrams in order to enable the

customers understand the details without any difficulty. The

overcharging of battery or not adhering to the battery safety

instructions and any amendments because of overcharging may

lead to severe damage to the battery. His further contention is

that the averments in the complaint itself clearly shows that the

battery was charged over night and due to overcharging only, the

incident occurred and there is no negligence on the part of

petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgments of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravi Kapur Vs State of

Rajasthan 1, Thakur Singh Vs State of Punjab 2, State of

Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal 3, Madhavarao Jiwajirao Scindia and

1 MANU/SC/0659/2012 2 (2003) 9 SCC 208 3 1995 Supp (1) SCC 335

Others Vs Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and Others 4, Roy

V.D Vs State of Kerala 5 and R.P.Kapur Vs State of Punjab 6.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that if

the allegations in the complaint itself is also accepted there is no

negligence on the part of petitioner and it is also for the Court to

take into consideration any special features which appear in a

particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the

interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. His further

contention is that the complainant is not the owner of vehicle and

he is using the vehicle of others and did not follow the user

manual and the user manual is handed over to the owner of

vehicle. Therefore, it is clear abuse of process of law, as such,

prayed the Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

6. Heard Sri Vemuganti Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

7. Though notice is served on the 2nd respondent, none

appeared on his behalf.

4 1988 Crl.LJ 853 5 2001 Crl.L.J 165 6 1960 Crl.L.J.1239

8. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that

the case is at the stage of investigation and charge sheet is not yet

filed, the police has to enquire whether there is any manufacturing

defect in the battery. As such, prayed the Court to dismiss the

petition.

9. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material

placed on record, it is seen that the only contention of learned

counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant is not the owner

of vehicle and he has not followed the user manual. Except the

FIR there is no material on record to conclude whether it is the

negligence of complainant or the petitioner and investigation is

still in progress. The police have not collected any material

evidence to show that whether the complainant or the petitioner

on whose negligence, the incident occurred. First of all the

investigating agency has to verify whether there is any

manufacturing defect in the said battery which is still not known

and the trial is at the initial stage. As such, at this stage, it

cannot be said that the son of complainant has not followed user

manual. However, to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C, the Court has to see whether the averments in the

complaint prima facie shows that it constitute the offences as

alleged by the Police.

10. At this stage, it is pertinent to note the Judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs.

Surendra Kori 7, wherein, in paragraph No.14 it is held as follows:

"The High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. does not function as a Court of appeal or revision. This Court has, in several judgments, held that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though wide, has to be used sparingly, carefully and with caution. The High Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of wide magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material."

11. In view of the above discussion as well as the law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh

(supra), this Court does not find any merit in this criminal petition

to quash the proceedings in FIR No.93 of 2022 against the

petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7 (2012) 10 Supreme Court Cases 155

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.

__________________ K. SUJANA, J Date :29.04.2024 Rds