J.B.GARG,J - (1.) KRISHAN Lal and Bachan Lal, the two sons of Baij Nath, residents of village Bhewa, District Kurukshetra, have moved the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging FIR No. 277 registered at Police Station, Pehowa on 9-11-1992 for an offence under Sections 304-A/427/337 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) KRISHAN Lal and Bachan Lal are two brothers and they had been getting Sarswati Cold Store constructed at Pehowa. When a particular wall of the Cold Store was under construction on 7-11-1992 it collapsed and six or seven persons were injured under the debris and a little later two labourers and a girl aged about 10-11 years who was also working, died as a consequence of the injuries. The occurrence was seen by the Bua Dass and the complainant Jagdish Chand. The present FIR was registered on the statement of Jagdish Chand whose nephew Ram Kumar was one of the deceased. In the present petition, it has been alleged that the petitioners were the proprietors of the building which was under construction and there was no negligence of any kind on their part that neither the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code nor those of 304 A were there and the labour charges were settled between Jagdish Chand the complainant on one hand and the present petitioners on the other according to Annexure P-2, and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid in advance
(3.) ON behalf of the petitioners, it has been stressed that Jagdish Chand, according to Annexure P-2, was the contractor who had employed the labourers and the deceased or their heirs might he seeking any remedy against him and the petitioners were not liable for prosecution in respect of any of the offences referred to above. Here Public Prosecutor v. Pitchaiah Moopanar alias Pitchaiah Pillai, AIR 1970 Madras 198, has been referred to wherein it was held that the Manager of a school was not liable where building collapsed and students as well as a cow and two calves died in District Madurai. The petitioners who wanted to get a cold storage constructed were laymen and they could not be held liable for the negligence of the persons who were constructing it. These pleas have not been effectively controverted here. At any rate, death was not the result of any act of the two petitioners. The conclusion is that the present petition succeeds and the FIR in question as a whole and the consequent proceedings are hereby quashed. Petition succeeds.;