Chintaram Diwakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramesh Sinha, J

Since both these petitions arise out of same Crime No., they are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

By these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.), the petitioners seek quashing of the First Information Report (for short, the FIR) bearing Crime No.163/2018 registered by the Police Station, Fastarpur, Mungeli, under Section 304 A of IPC against the petitioners in respect of death of a woman namely Dhaneshvari Yadav W/o Khilawan Yadav due to coming in contact with the live hanging electric wire while she was coming back to home form a nearby water tap in the village.

According to the prosecution, they found a vehicle Hiwa bearing registration No. CG 04 – DC 2555 hit the electric pole because of which the wire was hanging and ultimately caused the death of the victim, therefore, FIR under Section 304 A of the IPC has been registered.

Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the whole chain of events would clearly demonstrate that the villagers were already aware about the hanging alive electric wire, it was kept in support of some wooden stick and had there been any accident caused by any vehicle breaking the wire, there must have been any information to the police or to the Electricity Department by any of the villager. There is nothing on record to show that the accident by the vehicle was reported any where to any authority. Nothing was done to stop the supply of electricity of the electric wire which was hanging to such a height that any one could have come in contact. He further submits that there was inordinate delay in registration of FIR, the incident is dated 20.08.2018, whereas the FIR has been registered on 12.11.2018. He also submits that the statement of not only father of the victim but also his brother has no mention of breakage of wire due to accident by any vehicle and after ten days again a statement is found which clearly shows that insertion of the vehicle details is clearly an afterthought. He later submits that charges have already been framed and he has also filed a revision against the order framing charge before the jurisdictional revisional Court, which is still pending.

On the other hand, Mr. Pankaj Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent opposes this petition and submit that since the charges have been framed and the perusal of the materials on record discloses commission of cognizable offence, no interference is warranted at this stage.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

The legal position on the issue of quashing of criminal proceedings is well-settled that the jurisdiction to quash a complaint, FIR or a charge- heet should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases and Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the investigations of cognizable offences. However, where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, the FIR or the charge-sheet may be quashed in exercise of powers under Article 226 or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C {See: State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 605 and Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others (2021) SCC OnLine SC 315}. Moreover, in the instant case charges have already been framed and trial is in progress and also the fact the petitioners have already filed a revision before the jurisdictional Court, which is pending.

In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case to quash the FIR, charge sheet and the case pending before trial Court in Crime No.163/2018 registered by Police Station Fastarpur, Mungeli, District – Mungeli, as such, both these petitions are dismissed.