IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Misc. Application (C-482) No. 611 of 2010 1. Om Prakash Singh S/o Sri Ved Singh R/o 231, Allora Enclave, Dayal Bagh, Agra. 2. Kundan Singh S/o Sri Bhim singh R/o Lakhanpur, Ramnagar, District Nainital. 3. Dinesh Chand Tiwari S/o Gopal Datt Tiwari R/o Moti Mahal, Ramnagar, Distt. Nainital. ...…………. Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Principal Secretary (Home) Dehradun, Uttarakhand. 2. Ramjani S/o Allaha Diya R/o Near GIC College, Ram Nagar, District Nainital. ...…………. Respondents Mrs. Prabha Naithani, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder, and Mr. B.S. Parihar, Brief Holder, present for respondent No. 1 / State. Mr. Bhuvnesh Joshi, Advocate, present for respondent No. 2 / complainant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) This is joint petition, moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), by the petitioners and complainant / respondent No. 2 Ramjani, seeking direction from this Court to accord permission of compounding the offences in Criminal Case No. 1468 of 2003 (Old No. 137 of 2001), State Vs. Kishan Lal Pippal and others, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital. 3) Brief facts of the case are that a wall was constructed by contractor Dinesh Chand Tiwari (petitioner No. 3) under the supervision of the P.W.D. officers, namely Om Prakash Singh and Kundan Singh (petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2) for the Education Department at Ramnagar. Due to rain, said wall fell down in the year 1999, in which six persons lost their lives. A first information report was registered as Crime No. 569 of 1999, in respect of offences punishable under Section 304 and 427 of I.P.C., at police station Ramnagar, against unknown persons. After investigation, the police submitted final report, but the Magistrate summoned the petitioners as accused to face the trial vide order dated 21.06.2003. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though earlier petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were filed and the same were dismissed, but the subsequent development is that the complainant has entered into compromise with the petitioners, and has sought compounding. That is why, the present petition is filed jointly by the complainant (respondent No. 2) and the petitioners. 5) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the facts alleged in the first information report and the prosecution story, is accepted, it only constitutes offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. 6) Section 304-A of I.P.C. provides that whoever causes death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. On the other hand, Section 304 of I.P.C. provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It provides that whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is not done with knowledge that it is likely to cause the death, but without intention of causing death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 7) The distinction between the two sections is apparent and clear. While, Section 304-A of I.P.C. provides punishment for causing death by negligence, Section 304 of I.P.C. provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is nobody’s case that the contractor or the P.W.D. officers had any intention to cause death, or had knowledge that the act on their part is likely to cause the death. What has happened in the present case is that a boundary wall constructed by the contractor under the supervision of P.W.D. officers has fallen down during rains in which human lives are lost. It is nothing but a clear case of death by negligence, as such, the prosecution story and the allegations made in the first information report make out only a case punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C., which is a bailable offence. 8) Since, the offence punishable under Section 304 of I.P.C. is not made out, and it is only Section 427 and 304-A of I.P.C. which are made out from the prosecution story, as such, this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the following direction: The proceedings against the petitioners, namely Om Prakash Singh, Kundan Singh and Dinesh Chand Tiwari shall stand quashed so far as the offence punishable under Section 304 of I.P.C. is concerned. However, the trial may proceed in respect of offences punishable under Section 427 and 304-A of I.P.C. The petitioners, if not already arrested, and surrender before the court concerned within a period of fifteen days, their bail application shall be heard and disposed of without unreasonable delay. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. July 02, 2010. H. Negi