AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioners is to quash the F.I.R. of Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No. 04/2007, which was registered u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, who are the railway officials. It appears that one Mankeshwar Singh lodged a first information report before Jugsalai (Bagbera) police station, alleging therein that on 08.01.2007 at about 11:30 A.M. the accused persons namely, Chandan Kumar Manjhi and P.K. Ghosh @ Deepak Kumar Ghosh came to the house of the informant on a vehicle and asked him as to why he has stacked stone boulders in front of his house. They also demanded Rs. 20,000/- from him and also threatened that if the amount was not paid, he would be dispossessed from the land. It has been further alleged in the F.I.R. that on 10.01.2007, they again came to the house of the informant and started demolishing the boundary wails as well as tube well and after beating the informant they took him to the R.P.F. Post. It is further alleged that when the informant''s wife heard all these things, she out of shock fell down and subsequently she suffered from heart attack and died in the night at about 8:30 P.M.
It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 being an Assistant Engineer, posted in South Eastern Railway, is a Gazetted Officer of the Central Government whereas, the petitioner No. 2 is the Junior Engineer and the petitioner No. 3 is the Inspector of Railway Protection Force. It is said that the informant had encroached railway land for which an Eviction Case No. 544 of 2000 was filed by the Railway Administration against Rajesh Singh (Informant) before the Estate Officer, South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur at Chakradharpur and by order dated 28.11.2000, the Estate Officer has passed an order for eviction and demolition of the encroachment made by the informant in exercise of the powers under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. The order passed by the Estate Officer has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
The Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway by issue of letter dated 08.05.2003 directed the petitioners to remove the encroachment made by the informant and take possession of the railway land. Since the informant did not remove the encroachment and did not vacate the Railway land rather started making further construction on the adjacent Railway land. Warning was given to the informant but he threatened and abused the petitioners, and then the matter was reported to the Officer Incharge of the Railway Protection Force. The Railway Protection Force officials arrested the informant under the Railway Act and he was produced before the Railway Magistrate on the next date where he pleaded guilty and he was fined also.
Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even according to the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken to be true, it is not alleged that any of the petitioners even touched the body of the wife of the informant and, therefore, it cannot be said that they committed an offence u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code. As a matter of fact in the F.I.R. self it is said that she suffered from heart attack and died due to that. It is further submitted that the petitioners acted in discharge of their official duties.
From the facts stated above, it has to be seen as to whether the action taken by the petitioners or the allegations made in the F.I.R. prima fade constitute an offence u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and whether any case for investigation by the police is made out or whether lodging of the F.I.R. was malicious.
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:
Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder--
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
From a plain reading of the provisions of Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, it appears that in order to constitute the offence u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code, the following ingredients have to be established:
(i) There should be death of a person;
(ii) Such death should be caused by act of the accused;
(iii) The accused intended by such act to cause death, or that he intended by such act to cause such bodily injury which was likely to cause death or that he knew that such act of his would be likely to cause death.
In the present case, even according to the allegations made in the F.I.R., admittedly these petitioners did not even touch the body of the wife of the informant who allegedly suffered heart attack and died. It may be that these petitioners went to the house of this informant and then got encroachment removed by demolishing wall etc. on the basis of an order of the Court and in that course the informant was arrested also and in that course informant''s wife suffered from heart attack and subsequently died due to that. In my view by no stretch of imagination the petitioners can be proceeded with or may be hauled up for commission of an offence u/s 304 of the Indian Penal Code only because the informant''s wife died due to heart attack due to the action taken by the petitioners for removal of encroachment. The intention to cause death or the knowledge that their such act may cause death, is totally missing in the present case. Therefore, lodging of F.I.R. for the alleged commission of the offence u/s 304 I.P.C. against the petitioners is absolutely abuse to the process of law. In my view, no case of criminal nature at all is made out from the allegations made in the F.I.R.
In view of the discussions and findings above, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned F.I.R. of Jugsalai (Bagbera) P.S. Case No. 04/2007 is hereby quashed.