IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT P.R. No.......5?^.' PresMted &y Shri . Oated.........../A ]J.-.K:.s ^;n Cr.M.P. N0. 535 /20111S.B.) Jamuna Bai, W/o Late Radhelal Sahu, Aged about 44 years, Grani Baputala, T&hsil and District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS Ashok Jain, S/o Uttara Chand Jain, Aged about 30 years, Occupation - Business, Prop. Jhumar Traders, Tah. 8s District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.) APPUCATION UNDER SECTION 48S OF CR.P.C. RESPONDENT •si"' _ta'L^ ? HIGH COURT OF CHHAniSGARH : BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Cr.M.P. No.538/2011 PETmONER RESPONDENT Jamuna Bai Versus Ashok Jain PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CFUMINAi. PROCEDURE Present: - Shri V.K-Sharma, counsel for the petitioner. s Shri Arvind Singh, counse! forthe resppndent. ^. ORALORDER (Passed on 23Id of November, 2Q11) With the consent ofthe pafties, the matter is heard finally. This petitlon under Section 482 CrPC has been fiied by the petittoner calling in question the correctness and vaiidity of order dated 29/10/04 passed by the Sessions Judge in criminal revision No.29/03 by whteh, order dated 27/1/03 taking ci^nizance has been set aside and criminal proceedings have been closed. 2. One-Radhelal died during the course qf employment on 26/03/99 as some of the bags of putses fell upon him and he was erushed. The petitioner who is the wife of the deceased - Radhelai flled a complaint in the Court of Chief Judiciai Magistrate, Rajnandgaon atleging commission of offence under Section 304-A IPC against the employer, She was examined on oath and preliminary statements of complainant's wtnesses t LI^'J were also taken by the Magistrate. Vide order dated 18/10/01, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A of IPG against the respondent and process was issued. Aggrieved by the order taking cognizance, a revision was preferred by the respondent which has been allowed vide order dated 29/10/04, giving rise to instant petition by the petitioner / compiainant. 3. Assalling the correctn^ and validity of the order pa^ed bythe learned revisional Court, learned counsel forthe petitionersubmittedthat the averments made in the complaint and the preliminary statements recorded by the Magistrate and the examination of the complainaiit on oath prima facie make out a case for commission of offence under Section 304-A of IPC against the respondent and the leamed Magistrate rightly took cc^nizance but the revisional Court traversed beyond jurisdiction in going into the veracity of the case of the complalnant by entering into the assessment of the material brought on record by the complainant and ^t aside the order taking cognizance which is impermissible under the law. It was contended that the complainant in her examination pn oath as ateo other witnesses nameiy RamsherSahu and Sunderlaf haveclearly stated that the death of Radhelal caused due to falling of number of bags on him which cleariy shows that the incident happened because of negligence on the part ofthe respondent as he did not properly manage the affiairs ofthe go-down maintained by him. He further submits that Ramsher Sahu - brother-in-law of the deceased, who has been examined, has stated that .«iS t ••f^!9^ 9 ~""WS s aS'- ^) the only reason for the accident is the negiigenee on the part of the respondent and the place where the bags were kept was aiso dark. In his submission, what is required to be seen at the stage of cognizance is only a prima facie case and meticulous examination is not warranted. In support of his submlssion, leamed counsel for the petitioner relies upen the decision in the case of Mahadev Prasad Kaushik v. State ofUttar Pradesh and another, (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 479 and Keshyb Mahindra v. State of Madhva Pradesh. (1996) 8 Suprenje Court Cases 129. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsubmits that the leamed revisional Court has rightly exercised its jurisdictipn and interfered with the order taking cognizance because neither in tiie complaint nor in any of the preliminary statements, any cogent material has come on record so as to warrant prosecutlon of the respondent for commission of offence under Section 304-A IPC. He supports the order passed bythe learned revisional Court. 5. While the learned Magistrate took cognizance by recording that the complainant's statements prima facie make out a case of n^tigence on the part of the respondent, the learned revisional Court in a detalled order has examined the entire material on record, averments made in the comptaint and the preliminary statements. After going through the statements and eontents of the complaint, the iearned revisionai Court .^ .•-•^f^.: 4 ^ i recorded that the onty material which has come out is that the deceased died as some of the gunny bags fell upon him. The learned revisional Court has also taken into consideration that though Ramsher Sahu has stated about darkness but the other empioyee who was present on the spot and was atso engaged in the same work as labourer atong with the deceased - Radheial, has not stated that there was any darkness and the only material which has come forth from the examination of the complainant and the statements is that the bags fell upoR the deceased due to which he suffered injury and died. 6. In order to prlma facie make out a case of prosecution for commlssion of offence under Secfion 304-A IPC, the comptaint and statements must prima facie make out a case that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the respondent. The prosecution of a person is a serious matter and the same cannot be allowed unless there is prima facie material warranting registration of criminal case. The examination of the material on record by the learned revistonal Court and the conclusion drawn that the material on record does not make outany case, does not suffer from any illegality. This Court has aiso gone fhrough the contents of the compiaint and statements and it is found that except that the deceased died due to falling of bags, no ci^ent material is on record to even make out a prima facie case that the accident was caused due to any rash and negligent act ofthe respondent / employer. Whatever may the civii liability of the employer, in cases of such accident, on the 3§pnf BABlSBAUqs UBqOMBJpUIUBIV -/PS SdaaQ •pBssiuisip sjoisjsyi s.i uoiiiisd 941 'Od-iO VSy uojtoss JSpun sjSMod \o sspjexe ui ynoo siq) Aq aousje^isiu! IUBJJBM 0} SB os 'eoiisnf jo SBBIIIBOSILU sq 01 pies eq ^ ueo jou Aiis.iSAjad jo A}!|e69||i }U8»edAue luojj jsyns }ou ssop Moisq ynoo 941 Aq psssBd jspjo 9i|t leq} MSIA 8i|} p si ynoo siyi 'AjBuipJooov 'L •ino 9peiu si tuepuodssj 3i|i ^o UOI}n08SOjd JO 9880 8IOBJ BI.UUd B 164} P|04 O) t|nO!U!P Sl }! '|B.U9}BIU JO SISBq