STATE OF HARYANA versus RAJESH AGGARWAL & ANR. on 20 August 2018

[2018] 10 S.C.R. 925

STATE OF HARYANA

v.

RAJESH AGGARWAL & ANR.

(Criminal Appeal No. 2218 of 2011)

AUGUST 20, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE ANDSANJAY KISHAN KAUL, JJ.]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of FIR –Prosecution case was that a blast took place in a factory resultingin death of seven persons and criminal proceedings were initiatedagainst the respondents being the persons responsible for the affairsand running of the factory for commission of offence punishableunder s.302 IPC – Respondents sought quashing of FIR – HighCourt partly allowed the petition and altered the charge to s.304AIPC – On State’s appeal, held: The reasoning and the conclusionarrived at by the High Court for altering the charge for the offencefrom s.302 to s.304-A IPC at this stage cannot be faulted with –Sessions Judge is directed to complete the trial within one year –Penal Code, 1860 – s.304A.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: The trial in the case must set in motion and concludein terms of the direction of the High Court for deciding as towhether any case under Section 304-A IPC has been made outagainst the respondents or not and, if so, what punishment canbe imposed on them for commission of such offence, and if not,then why. Due to pendency of this litigation and the stay operating,the trial in the case remained stayed for all these years. TheSessions Judge, who is seized of the trial of the respondents’case in question, is directed to ensure that the trial is completedon merits within one year from the date of this order strictly inaccordance with law. Depending upon the evidence adduced bythe prosecution, the Sessions Judge has ample power to alter/amend/add any charge by taking recourse to powers under Section216 of the Cr.P.C. notwithstanding the High Court altering thecharge at this stage. [Paras 13-16] [927-E-G; 928-A-B]

925

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 2218 of 2011

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.11.2006 of the High Courtof Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 413 of2001.

B

Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Manpreet Kaur Bhalla, Niraj Jha, VinodSharma, Gopal Singh, Shivam Singh, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by theCState of Haryana against the final judgment and order dated 27.11.2006passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CriminalRevision No.413 of 2001 whereby the High Court partly allowed thepetition filed by the respondents herein and altered the charge framedagainst them for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IndianPenal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) to that under SectionD304-A IPC.

2. Few facts need to be mentioned infra for the disposal of theappeal, which involves a short point.

3. There is a private limited company called “M/s Kee PharmaPrivate Limited” at Gurgaon (Haryana). This company is engaged inEthe business of manufacture of chemical drugs in their factory at Gurgaon.

4. The respondents are said to be the shareholders/Directors ofthe Company and are responsible for the day-to-day affairs and workingof the Company and its factory.

5. On 27.06.1996, a blast occurred in the factory premises andas a result of which smoke spread in the entire factory. When the blastoccurred, 45 workers were present in the factory. They ran here andthere for their safety. This resulted in stampede in the factory area causingdeath of seven workers.

F

6. This led to registration of FIR No.694 of 1996 on 27.06.1996against the respondents in PS Sadar, Gurgaon at the instance of some ofthe workers. It was registered against the respondents being the personsresponsible for the affairs and running of the Company and its factoryfor commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

G

H

7. The respondents, questioning the legality of the FIR registeredagainst them for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, filed apetition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”) in the High Court of Punjaband Haryana and sought its quashing.

8. By impugned order, the High Court partly allowed the petitionand altered the charge framed against the respondents for the offencepunishable under Section 302 IPC to Section 304-A IPC.

9. The State felt aggrieved by the impugned order and filed thisappeal by way of special leave in this Court.

10. Heard Dr. Monika Gusain, learned counsel for the appellant-State and Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

11. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal,is whether the High Court was justified in partly allowing the petitionand thereby was justified in altering the charge framed against therespondents for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to Section304-A IPC.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.

13. At the outset, we are constrained to observe that the trial inthe case must set in motion and conclude in terms of the direction of theHigh Court for deciding as to whether any case under Section 304-AIPC has been made out against the respondents or not and, if so, whatpunishment can be imposed on them for commission of such offence,and if not, then why. In our opinion, the reasoning and the conclusionarrived at by the High Court for altering the charge for the offence fromSection 302 to Section 304-A IPC at this stage cannot be faulted with.

14. It is really unfortunate that due to pendency of this litigationand the stay operating, the trial in the case remained stayed for all theseyears. It obviously benefited the respondents who, despite not questioningthe altering of the charge by the High Court, did not face trial even foraltered charge.

15. Without expressing any opinion on the factual controversy onthe said unfortunate incident, which took the life of seven workers asthe same is now subject matter of trial before the Sessions Judge, we A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adirect the Sessions Judge, who is seized of the trial of the respondents’case in question, to ensure that the trial is completed on merits withinone year from the date of this order strictly in accordance with law.

16. Needless to observe, depending upon the evidence adducedby the prosecution, the Sessions Judge has ample power to alter/amend/Badd any charge by taking recourse to powers under Section 216 of theCr.P.C. notwithstanding the High Court altering the charge at this stage.

17. With these observations/directions, the appeal fails and isaccordingly dismissed. The order granting interim stay is recalled.

18. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith toCthe concerned Sessions Judge/Police Station for ensuring compliance ofthe directions contained in this order.

Devika Gujral Appeal dismissed.

D

E

F

G

H