IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.31754 of 2014 BETWEEN D.Chinnaiah AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner, who is working as a Mechanical Maintenance Contractor at Navabharat Ventures Limited Company, states that one V.Shanker, who was 58 years old, joined as a contract labour in the said Company. Petitioner states that since he was unwell, he sought financial help and hence, he deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- in his account and that the said contract labour was taking treatment at Khammam hospital. It is further stated that petitioner has deposited a further sum of Rs.35,000/- also into his account. However, on 04.05.2014, the said worker appears to have died and his wife, family members and relatives came to the company and kept the dead body in the main gate and started raising slogans demanding compensation. Petitioner also states that relatives of the said deceased forced the petitioner to sign an affidavit and the family members of the deceased are coming to his residence and threatening the petitioner and his family members. On account of that, the petitioner filed a complaint, dated 04.09.2014, before respondent No.4 and alleging that no action is taken by respondent No.4 or respondent Nos.2 and 3, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Instructions received by the learned Government Pleader would show that there are two versions resulting in death of the said worker. While it is alleged that he suffered injury while working in the company, the other version appears to be that the deceased was unwell and ultimately died. In any case, based on the complaint received, a case in crime No.325 of 2014 was registered for investigation into the offence under Section 174 Cr.P.C. for suspicious death at Kothagudem town police station on 04.09.2014 and investigation is taken up. After enquiry, it appears that the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem, accorded permission to the investigating agency to drop the case as an accidental death due to fall of belt machine from the Navabharat Plant. It also appears that there is another complaint in Crime No.326 of 2014 for the offences under Sections 143, 186, 353, 341 and 149 IPC also at Palavancha Police Station on 04.09.2014, wherein it is alleged that the law and order problem is being created to the employees working in the Navabharat Plant. The said crime is stated to be under investigation. Meanwhile, the petitioner’s petition, dated 05.09.2014 was received by the Circle Inspector of Police by registered post and a general diary entry was made at Palavancha Town Police Station on 20.09.2014 and the Sub-Inspector of Police was directed to enquire into the matter. It is, however, stated that the petitioner is not available at his residence nor has contacted the Palavancha town police station and, as such, the police are unable to record his statement and enquiry into the matter is withheld. The instructions further state that after conducting preliminary enquiry action will be taken on the petition of the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the family members of the deceased are not parties and, as such, the facts would be known only after conducting enquiry.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner will cooperate and approach respondent No.4 so as to enable respondent No.4 to conduct preliminary enquiry into his complaint and then taken appropriate action.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to approach respondent No.4 and thereafter respondent No.4 will record his statement and conduct preliminary enquiry regarding petitioner’s complaint, dated 05.09.2014 and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 17, 2014 LMV