S. Kalayarasan vs The State

S. Palanivelu, J.—A case has been registered against the petitioner and three other persons in Cr. No. 92 of 2004 for the offences

punishable under Sections 304(A), 338, 337 r/w 109 and 34 of I.P.C. by the respondent police. The first accused in the case was a contractor,

who has taken contract for construction of at a ground level water tank in the Arunthathiyar Colony in Mittapatti Village in which the

petitioner/second accused is an engineer, was assigned duty to supervise the day to day construction work. The third accused is the Extension

Officer, fourth accused is the Block Development Officer. On 13.3.2004, the water tank busted causing death of two persons, grievous hurt to

four persons besides simple injuries to 11 persons.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner streneously argued that the case registered against second accused/petitioner herein is not

at all maintainable and the petitioner is falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the provision of law has been misquoted with regard

to the petitioner.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of this court to the order of this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 23653 of 2006

dated 19.1.2007 in which the proceedings against the third and fourth accused of this case have been quashed. He also pleaded on the strength of

the decision of learned single Judge of this Court reported in Capt. D. Karunakar, Director, Manito Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Lt.Cl. A.C.

Viswanathan, Director, Manito Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Cherian Varghese, Director, Manito Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Geojith, Securities Ltd. and

Mr. Suprabhat Lala, Director, Manito Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Geojith, Securities Ltd. Vs. Tamil Nadu News Print and Papers Ltd., wherein the

following observations have been made:

Mr. N. Sudharshan, teamed counsel also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in V. Karthikeyan and Anr. v. The Registrar of

Companies, etc. 2001 (2) LW (Cri.) 656 to the effectthat benefit should be extended to the similarly placed other accused though they have not

preferred any Petitions for quashing. This Court in that decision after allowing the quashing Petition held as follows:

Under the circumstance, the entire proceedings in pursuance of the wrong cognizance taken in E.O.C.C. No. 177 of 1998 on the file of the

Additional Chief Metropoltan Magistrate, E.O.I, Egmore, are liable to be quashed not only as against the petitioners but also as against all the

other accused though they are not the petitioners herein.

In this case also, apart from the petitioners herein, the other accused viz., A-3, A-9 and A-10 also stand on a similar footing like the petitioners

herein and therefore, the proceedings initiated against them is also liable to be quashed.

No doubt the co-accused in this case got the benefit of having quashed the proceedings against them in the above said Cr. No.

Going by the observation contained in the above said Order of this Court in Cri. O.P. No. 23653 of 2006, it is seen as follows:

by no stretch of imagination it can be stated that the petitioners who have been arrayed as A-3 and A-4 are responsible for any rash and negligent

act resulting the burst or ground level water tank causing the death of two persons and causing injuries to 15 persons.

It is further found as follows:

The learned Senior counsel pointed out that in the complaint given by one of the victims, there is no implication of the petitioners at all. It is also

pointed out by the learned Senior counsel that the Block Development Officer, who succeeded the second petitioner has categorically stated in his

statement recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that only A-1 and A-2 are the persons solely responsible for the irregular

construction and acting in a negligent manner while constructing the ground level water tank which resulted in the occurrence and the Block

Development Officer has not whispered a word about these petitioners. The leanred Senior Counsel further pointed out that there is absolutely no

materials available on record through the statements recorded from the witnesses implicating the accused for the alleged offence under Sections

304-A, 338, 337 r/w 109 and 34 I.P.C.

As far as A3 and A4 are concerned they are not at all directly involved and only they were present to see the mixing of cement and sand of

construction work. Whereas A1 and A2 are directly responsible for the said process, which forms basis for the cause of action. It is needless to

mention that the second accused who is the petitioner herein is a qualified engineer who was chosen by the first accused to supervise the above

said process of construction and he has accepted to apply his mind in the above said process in order to ensure the safety of the persons working

in and the persons who will get benefit in future by the said scheme. There is no ground made out to show that the petitioner is not at all responsible

for the above said instance. Hence the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner could not be accepted.

As far this petitioner with regard to consequences which the police have registered in the F.I.R., the petitioner can freely agitate it before the trial

court before framing charges against him. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that he could in no way be brought u/s

34 of I.P.C. I could not find anything supportive to the petitioner so as to order for quashing of the complaint and there is no abuse of process of

the Court with regard to the role played by the petitioner herein.

In the above circumstance, the petition is liable for dismissal. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. Consequently connected M.Ps. are

dismissed.