Court No. - 49
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15546 of 2021
Applicant :- Ompal
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandan Bhagat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 13.04.2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 92 of 2015 under Sections 338, 304-A I.P.C., P.S. Bhawanpur, District Meerut as well as cognizance order dated 05.09.2020 pending in the Court of C.J.M., Court No. 2, Meerut.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while pole was being erected, a child Imran got electric shock due to which he died in the hospital during treatment on 29.04.2015. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the present incident took place due to the fault of contractor and his labourers. Present applicant has nothing to do with the offence in question and has been falsely implicated.
Per-contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the above contentions and submitted that whether child Imran got electric shock due to fault of contractor or engineer, cannot be determined in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharastra and Others, 2020 SCC Online SC 850, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held:
"iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the rarest of rare case (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule."
Following other authorities can be cited on the aforesaid point:
R. P. Kapur vs. The State Of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. P.P. Sharma, AIR 1991 SC 1260 lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Md. Sharaful Haque and Ors., AIR 2005 SC 9.
All the submissions made at the Bar relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Order Date :- 21.9.2021
A. Mandhani