IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.33701 of 2007 1. RAJENDRA MODI 2. Mahendra Modi 3. Surendra Modi All are son of Late Rameshwar Modi, R/o village Jhumri Tilaiya, P.S. Koderma, District Koderma (Jharkhand) 4. Baidyanath Prasad Singh @ Sinha, Son of Late Banwari Lal Sinha, R/o Mohalla Dudhimati, P.S. Koderma, District Koderma (Jharkhand) …. Petitioners Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Suryadeo Bhuiyan, S/o Prabhu Bhuiyan, R/o village lasgari, P.S. Gori, district Chatra (Jharkhand). … Opp. Parties. ----------- 3 14.11.2008 Heard Sri Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Satyavrat Varma, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 and Sri Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State. The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted under sections 288, 337, 338 and 304A I.P.C. in connection with Rajauli P.S. Case No. 64 of 2006, wherein cognizance has been taken thereunder on 13.1.2007 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada, and the petitioners prays for quashing of the order taking cognizance. One Suryadeo Bhuian, impleaded herein O.P.No. 2, gave his fardbeyan to the S.I. cum Officer Incharge, Rajauli P.S. at 11.45 A.M. on 2.6.2006 interalia alleging that he along with his brother Raj Kumar Bharti and other labourers were working in Sharda Mines belonging to the petitioners when all of a sudden there was a land slide as a result of which the labourers working therein got injured and the brother of the informant Raj Kumar Bharti died at the spot. - 2 - The injured were taken to Parwati Clinic, Koderma, by petitioner no. 4 Baijnath Prasad Sinha, the Manager, for treatment and out of them one labourer, namely, Kapil Singh succumbed to his injury at the Clinic. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the accident happens to be an “Act of God” while performing mining operations and the death occurred thereby and no rash and negligent act on behalf of any of the petitioners had been alleged. There is also no allegation of safety norms not being followed. The learned counsel for the informant has very fairly conceded that no blame can be placed on any of the petitioners since the act was purely accidental and was neither preplanned nor due to rash or negligent act of the petitioners. He also does not allege the non adherence of safety norms. Due regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case none of the offences whereunder cognizance has been taken appears to have been made out against any of the petitioners and to continue criminal proceeding would be an absolute abuse of the process of the Court. Such unwarranted prosecution cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is required to be quashed. Accordingly the impugned order as also proceeding in respect of the petitioners is hereby quashed and the application is allowed. Spd/- (Abhijit Sinha, J.)