Pradeep Kumar Goel & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Manoj K. Tiwari, J

This criminal miscellaneous application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the applicants for quashing the summoning order dated 02.09.2011 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1609 of 2011, under Sections 285, 287 & 304 of I.P.C. pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.

Brief facts of the case are that applicant Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Goel and Mr. Ravinder Arora, respectively are the directors of M/s Shivalik Air Products Pvt. Ltd. and applicant No. 3 - Mr. Pankaj Garg is working as Accountant in the said firm. An FIR was lodged on 21.01.2011 by respondent No. 2 - Mr. Lallu Prashad Gupta, under Sections 285, 287 & 304 of I.P.C. against the applicants with an allegation that his Uncle's son, namely, Mr. Prem Chand was working in M/s Shivalik Air Products Pvt. Ltd. He (Mr. Prem Chand) was engaged in filing the Oxygen cylinders. On the date of incident, i.e. 21.01.2011 fire broke out in the factory due to explosion in a cylinder in which several persons were badly injured and Prem Chand died instantaneously. The police, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the applicants on 15.04.2011. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar took cognizance against the applicants under the aforesaid sections vide order dated 02.09.2011. Thus, feeling aggrieved, applicants have filed this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the applicants, submits that the applicants' firm is engaged in the business of bottling of Industrial Oxygen & Carbon Dioxide and all safety measures/precautions were taken and necessary permissions were obtained from concerned Government agencies/departments. He further submits that it was an accident and no offence is made out against the applicants under Section 304 of I.P.C., at all.

Mr. Partiroop Pande, learned A.G.A. for the State submits that while exercising powers under section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot enter into questions of fact and cannot re-appreciate the evidence. He further submits that scope of Section 482 is limited and at this stage this Court has to see only as to whether prima facie case is made out justifying summoning of the accused or not.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any justification to interfere in the impugned summoning order passed by learned trial court. It is settled position in law that High Court would interfere with a summoning order or proceedings of a criminal case only in rarest of rare cases where the offence is not made out or there is gross injustice to the accused-applicant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find this to be a fit case for exercise of inherent powers available under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The contentions, which learned counsel for the applicants raised before me, including the contention that Section 304 of I.P.C. is not made out against the applicants, can be raised before the trial court at an appropriate stage.

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants is dismissed. Interim order dated 31.01.2013 stands vacated.

Let the applicants appear before the court concerned on or before 10.05.2019 and move bail application(s). It is made clear that as soon as the applicants appear before learned court below and move bail application, the same shall be considered, as far as possible on the same day itself on its merit. In case, the bail application is deferred for any reason (including its rejection), the concerned Magistrate shall forward the papers to learned Sessions Judge for deciding the bail application on the same day. It is directed that till 10.05.2019, no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants.

Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that applicant No. 2 - Mr. Ravindra Arora has recently undergone liver transplant surgery and he is about 60 years of age, therefore, he may be released on bail on the same day itself.

Considering the submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant as well as considering the nature of ailment of applicant No. 2, this Court is of the opinion that he shall be released on bail, for a period of ten days or till the disposal of his bail application, on furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.