S.304-A IPC | Nothing On Record To Show Safety Measures Were Followed At Construction Site: MP High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Contractor

The bench comprising Justice Rajendra Kumar Verma observed that there was nothing on record to suggest that the safety norms were followed at the construction site. Furthermore, it observed that whether someone else was at fault in the case was a matter of evidence that could be determined only at the stage of trial-

…there is nothing on record to show that the safety norms were being taken by the company at the time of incident on the work site…Now, whether the safety measures/ norms regarding safety measures have been followed by the petitioner/company at the work site or not; it is a matter of evidence, prima facie, it is evident that the spot map made by the police during investigation and the statement of the eye-witness Rahul that the radium indicators or banners were far away from the prescribed distance and on the other side his statement regarding speed of the motorcycle, are matter of evidence and can not be considered at this stage and the same can be ascertained after proper trial only.

Facts of the case were that two individuals were on a bike which met with an accident at a construction site due to which, one of them died. It was alleged that adequate safety measures were not taken at the construction site which led to the unfortunate incident. Later, a case was registered against the Applicant for offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, since he was the Director of the company that was awarded the project at the construction site. Aggrieved, the Applicant moved an application under Section 482 CrPC, praying that the criminal proceedings against him be quashed.

The Applicant submitted before the Court that he had no role to play in the accident since he was merely the Director of the company that was awarded the contract at the construction site. Referring to the FIR in the case, it was further pointed out that it was the rider who was at fault since he was riding the vehicle rashly and negligently. It was also asserted that sufficient safety measures were taken at the construction site. Accordingly, it was urged that the charge against him was untenable and thus, it was prayed that the proceedings against him be set aside.

Per contra, the State submitted that the court below had conducted a detailed assessment of the investigation and material on record so as to take cognizance against the Applicant. It was also submitted that Section 304-A IPC is based upon the principles of constructive liability where the accused is made liable on account of them being a participant in the chain of causation. It was, thus, asserted that the contentions put forth by the Applicant could not be considered at the given stage by the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found force in the arguments put forth by the State. Analysing the jurisprudence laid down with respect to Section 304-A IPC, the Court thought it fit to not interfere with the matter. Thus, the Court decided not to set aside the proceedings against the Applicant and accordingly, the application was dismissed.