Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Priya Javrani, filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. 448/2019 registered at Police Station Gadge Nagar, Amravati, for offences under Sections 304-A (later converted to 304) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by the non-applicant No. 2, Suresh Ingle, alleging that the applicant and her husband engaged the services of his son for construction work without obtaining necessary permission from the Electricity Board and Municipal Corporation, resulting in the son's death due to electrocution from high tension electric wires. The applicant contended that the allegations did not make out any offence, as there was no criminal negligence or knowledge of likelihood of death. The State and the complainant opposed the application, arguing that the investigation revealed prima facie evidence of negligence. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the ingredients of Section 304 IPC were not satisfied, as there was no evidence that the applicant knew that the act was likely to cause death. The court emphasized that mere failure to obtain permission does not amount to culpable homicide. Consequently, the court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom against the applicant.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Inherent Powers - The High Court examined whether the FIR alleging offences under Sections 304 and 34 IPC should be quashed for lack of prima facie case. The court held that the allegations do not disclose the ingredients of Section 304 IPC as there is no evidence of knowledge or intention to cause death, nor gross negligence amounting to culpable homicide. The mere failure to obtain permission from the Electricity Board does not attract Section 304 IPC. (Paras 1-6) B) Indian Penal Code - Culpable Homicide - Section 304 IPC - Distinction from Rash and Negligent Act - The court considered the difference between Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and Section 304-A (causing death by negligence). It held that for Section 304, there must be knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, which is absent in this case. The death occurred due to accidental electrocution, and the applicant's failure to obtain permission does not amount to such knowledge. (Paras 4-6) C) Indian Penal Code - Causing Death by Negligence - Section 304-A IPC - Applicability - The court noted that the offence was initially registered under Section 304-A but later converted to Section 304. However, even if Section 304-A were considered, the facts do not establish rash or negligent act by the applicant. The death was an unfortunate accident, and the applicant cannot be held criminally liable without proof of negligence. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR registered under Sections 304 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant for the death of a worker due to electrocution during construction work, without obtaining permission from the Electricity Board, can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application and quashed FIR No. 448/2019 and all proceedings arising therefrom against the applicant.
Law Points
- Criminal negligence
- Section 304 IPC
- Section 304-A IPC
- Quashing of FIR
- Section 482 CrPC
- Ingredients of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
- Distinction between rash and negligent act and culpable homicide
