Chattisgarh High Court
Guru Rajkumar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 June, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:25757-DB
RAHUL
JHA NAFR
Digitally signed by
RAHUL JHA
Date: 2025.06.19
18:29:16 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 732 of 2023
1 - Guru Rajkumar S/o Thirugnanasampathan Aged About 35 Years R/o
Quarter No. 186, Type B, Sector - 2, BALCO, Korba, District Korba
Chhattisgarh. (At The Relevant Time Was Working As Assistant Manager
Alumina Handling), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Satyendra Lodhi S/o Ram Kumar Lodhi Aged About 39 Years R/o Quarter
No. 208/ B/ 2 BALCO, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (At The Relevant
Time Was Working As Assistant Manager Safety).
3 - Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Raj Narayan Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o D/8,
Sector - 2 BALCO Nagar, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (At The
Relevant Time Was Working As General Manager Potline)
applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station BALCO, Korba, District :
Korba, Chhattisgarh
2 - Shahrukh Khan S/o Samser Khan R/o Housing Board Colony, Gupta
Chawl, Police Station BALCO, District Korba, Chhattigarh. Complainant/
Accused No. 1.
3 - Gourav Raj S/o Gopal Sharma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Milki ,
Post Teyar, District Nawada (Bihar) At Present R/o Shanti Nagar BALCO,
Korba, District Kobra, Chhattisgarh. Respondent/ Accused No. 4...
Respondent(s)
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Adv.
For State : Mr. Hariom Rai, PL
For Respondent No.2 ; Mr. Mirza Kesar Baig, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 : Mr. N.K. Chatterjee, Advocate
2
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
19/06/2025
1. By the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, the applicants
are seeking quashment of FIR dated 05/08/2022 bearing Crime No.
459/2022 registered at police Station BALCO, District Korba (C.G.), the
entire charge-sheet and the criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case
No. 3634/2022 pending before the Judicial magistrate First Class, Korba.
2. (a) Facts of the case in the nutshell are that applicant No.1, Guru
Rajkumar is a chemical engineer and at the relevant time, he was posted
as Associate Manager Alumina Handling BALCO, Korba, District Korba
(C.G.). Applicant No. 2 Satyendra Lodhi was holding the Diploma in
Industrial Safety and at the relevant time, he was posted as Safety
Officer Potline. Applicant No. 3 Rajesh Kumar Singh is a Metallurgy
Engineer and he was posted at the relevant time as General Manager
Potline. They are the accused in Crime No. 459/2022.
(b) The FIR of the incident has been lodged on 05.08.2022 in respect
of the incident alleged to have been took place on 22.11.2018. It was
lodged by respondent No.2 namely Shahrukh Khan/accused No.1 who
was the employee of the contractor and was appointed as Supervisor by
the contractor. The FIR was lodged inter-alia on the allegations that, the
deceased Dhirendra Kumar Shandilya who was working as driver of
3
Capsule Bulkar Vehicle bearing No. MP22H/2201 and was the employee
of contractor namely United Fright Carriers, died due to certain head
injuries. It has been alleged that on the date of incident that the deceased
was on night duty and at near about 03:30 in the morning one Manoj
Singh, Dhurve another driver of the contractor has intimated that the
deceased Dhirendra Bulkar driver is lying on floor. He was taken to the
hospital, but he could not succumbed by the head injuries sustained by
him. It has been alleged that, deceased fall from the vehicle while
opening the lead of the bulker.
(c) The police has investigated the matter and recorded the statement
of the co-employees, the supervisor of KCG Company, the drivers and
filed the charge sheet against the present applicants. The incident
occurred on 22.11.2018 and the employees of the BALCO namely
Deepak Prasad who was Factory Manager and Vikas Sharma who was
Factory Occupier were prosecuted and punished under Section 92 of the
Factories Act, 1948 and the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed for
violation of Section 41 of the Factories Act read with Rule 73(e) of the
Factories Rules and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- was awarded for violation of
Section 7A(1) of the Factories Act, 1948.
(d) According to the case of the applicants, for the same violation as
alleged in the FIR, two employees of the BALCO have already been
prosecuted in holding that the deceased was working without safety belt
and other safety equipment’s, due to which the accident occurred and
employee died due to the injuries sustained by him. Once two employees
4
of BALCO have already been held responsible for the said incident, the
present FIR against the other employees to whom no specific role has
been attributed, cannot be sustained. The Family members of the
deceased employee have already been awarded the compensation of Rs.
10,00,000/- (approximately) which has been paid by the employer i.e.
United Fright Carrier. The deceased was the employee of the contractor
and it was the contractor who was supposed to provide the safety belt as
well as other safety equipment’s to its employee and for which the
BALCO employees cannot be held responsible, only because they were
working and posted at the particular place. The applicants follows all the
safety measures and norms and government guidelines for the safety of
their employees. The deceased was the employee of the contractor and
was working under the Supervisor i.e. the accused No.1 Shahrukh Khan
who was also appointed by the contractor. The Safety belt as well as the
other safety equipment’s were supposed to be supplied by the contractor
and Supervisor of the contractor was also duty bound to ensure the
safety of the employees of the contractor.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that applicants are
officers of BALCO and on 12.11.2018 one Dhirendra Kumar Shandilya,
who was working as driver of Capsule Bulkar at Almuna Handling Plant
No.2 BALCO died in the and after the incident, the Proceedings under
Factories Act were initiated and compensation according to the law was
awarded and thereafter report was lodged on 05.08.2022. He contended
that deceased while working in the plant fall from the vehicle and
5
sustained head injuries and succumbed to the injuries for which
applicants, who are working in the office holding the higher post can not
be held liable for rash and negligent act in any manner. Therefore, the
allegation of commission of offence under Section 304A of I.P.C. can
not be attributed to the applicants. Learned counsel would submit that
the applicants have been made an accused in the case after 4 years of the
incident. Learned counsel would submit that the applicants are the
employees of the BALCO and they bona-fidely gave the information
about the incident. However, they have been made as an accused in the
case. Thus, the impugned FIR; charge-sheet; and the criminal proceeding
deserves to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for the State would oppose the aforesaid submission
and after finding the prima-facie case against the applicants, the FIR has
been registered and after due investigation, the charge-sheet has been
filed before the competent court who, in turn, after considering all the
aspects of the matter, initiated the criminal proceeding. Thus, the
applicants are not entitle for any relief and the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 & 3, who are the
proforma parties in the petition have adopted the arguments advanced by
the applicants.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.
7. Bare perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the
6
applicants are officers of BALCO. An accident occurred on 12.11.2018
at Almuna Handling Plant No.2 BALCO and one Dhirendra Kumar
Shandilya, who was working as driver of Capsule Bulkar died. After the
incident, the Proceedings under Factories Act were initiated and
compensation was awarded and thereafter report was lodged on
05.08.2022. It is also evident that deceased while working in the plant
fall from the vehicle and sustained head injuries and succumbed to the
injuries.
8. It is also evident that the applicants have been made an accused in the
case after 4 years of the incident. The incident occurred on 22/11/2018,
whereas the FIR has been lodged on 05/08/2022. In fact, the applicants
are the employees of the BALCO and they bona-fidely gave the
information about the incident. Therefore, the allegation of commission
of offence under Section 304A of I.P.C. can not be attributed to the
applicants who are working in the office holding the higher post in the
BALCO, for rash and negligent act in any manner.
9. The Supreme Court in the In the matter of Prabhakaran vs State of
Kerala1“, the Supreme Court held in paras 5 to 8 as under:-
“5. Section 304A speaks of causing death by negligence.
This section applies to rash and negligent acts and does not
apply to cases where death has been voluntarily caused.
This section obviously does not apply to cases where there
is an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act will
in all probability cause death. It only applies to cases in
which without any such intention or knowledge death is
1 (2007) 14 SCC 269
7caused by what is described as a rash and negligent act.
6. A negligent act is an act done without doing something
which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations
which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs
would do or act which a prudent or reasonable man would
not do in the circumstances attending it. A rash act is a
negligent act done precipitately. Negligence is the genes, of
which that in rashness the action is done precipitately that
the mischievous or illegal consequences may fall, but with a
hope that they will not. Lord Atkin in Andrews v. Director of
Public Prosecutions (1937) AC 576 at p.583: 2 All E.R.
552) observed as under:
“Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil
liability is not enough. For purposes of the criminal
law there are degrees of negligence, and a very high
degree of negligence is required to be proved before
the felony is established. Probably of all the epithets
that can be applied ‘reckless’ most nearly covers the
case. It is difficult to visualize a case of death caused
by ‘reckless’ driving, in the connotation of that term in
ordinary speech, which would not justify a conviction
for manslaughter, but it is probably not all
embracing, for ‘reckless’ suggests an indifference to
risk, whereas the accused may have appreciated the
risk, and intended to avoid it, and yet shown in the
means adopted to avoid the risk such a high degree of
negligence as would justify a conviction.”
7. Section 304-A applies to cases where there is no intention
to cause death and no knowledge that the act done in all
probability will cause death. The provision is directed at
offences outside the range of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The
provision applies only to such acts which are rash and
8
negligent and are directly cause of death of another person.
Negligence and rashness are essential elements under
Section 304-A. Culpable negligence lies in the failure to
exercise reasonable and proper care and the extent of its
reasonableness will always depend upon the circumstances
of each case. Rashness means doing an act with the
consciousness of a risk that evil consequences will follow
but with the hope that it will not. Negligence is a breach of
duty imposed by law. In criminal cases, the amount and
degree of negligence are determining factors. A question
whether the accused’s conduct amounted to culpable
rashness or negligence depends directly on the question as
to what is the amount of care and circumspection which a
prudent and reasonable man would consider to be sufficient
considering all the circumstances of the case. Criminal
rashness means hazarding a dangerous or wanton act with
the knowledge that it is dangerous or wanton and the
further knowledge that it may cause injury but done without
any intention to cause injury or knowledge that it would
probably be caused.
8. As noted above, ‘Rashness’ consists in hazarding a
dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so,
and that it it may cause injury. The criminality lies in such a
case in running the risk of doing such an act with
recklessness or indifference as to the consequences.
Criminal negligence on the other hand, is the gross and
culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and
proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to
the public generally or to an individual in particular, which,
having regard to all the circumstances out of which the
charge has arisen it was the imperative duty of the accused
person to have adopted.”
9
10. For bringing home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to firstly
prove negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of
the accused and the death of the victim. It is the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that there is no vicarious liability unless the
statute specifically provides for it, which is conspicuously lacking in the
IPC. Thus, applicants, who are the officials of the BALCO, cannot be
held vicariously liable for an offence since mens rea can be attributed to
them, unless deeming statutory provisions for the same are provided in
the relevant statute.
11. Considering the well settled prepositions of law, this CRMP is allowed.
Hence, the FIR dated 05/08/2022 bearing Crime No. 459/2022 registered
at police Station BALCO, District Korba (C.G.); the entire charge-sheet;
and the criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 3634/2022
pending before the Judicial magistrate First Class, Korba are quashed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Rahul/Gowri