Sourabh Singh Alias Saurbh Singh vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Sourabh Singh, a contractor, is challenging an FIR registered under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the subsequent criminal proceedings. The FIR stemmed from a fatal accident where a worker, Yugal Kishore, died after a PCC pole tilted and fell on him. The prosecution alleges the accident was due to the petitioner supplying sub-standard material and the supervisor failing to provide safety tools. The petitioner contends he procured the pole from a CSPDCL-approved vendor, Shri Bihari Enterprises, and subsequent testing revealed the pole's grade was significantly below the M-40 standard. He also highlighted that the approved vendor did not provide a quality report and that CSPDCL failed to conduct inspections. The petitioner had deposited ₹10,91,584/- as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Held

The High Court held that the contentions advanced by the petitioner, such as procuring the pole from an approved vendor, the supplier's failure to furnish a quality report, CSPDCL's lack of inspection, and the manufacturer/vendor's potential liability, are essentially matters of defence. These issues require appreciation of evidence, examination of contractual obligations, and determination of the extent of duty of care and apportionment of liability, which fall within the domain of the trial court and cannot be adjudicated in a petition for quashing proceedings. The Court also held that the deposit of compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, while a mitigating circumstance, does not ipso facto absolve the petitioner of criminal liability if the ingredients of the offence are prima facie disclosed. The Court found no merit in the submission regarding identical witness statements or procedural irregularities, stating that at the stage of considering a quashing petition, it is not required to meticulously examine the credibility or probative value of witness statements. The Court concluded that sufficient material exists to justify the continuation of criminal proceedings, and the allegations, taken at face value, make out a prima facie case under Section 106(1) of the BNS. The petition was dismissed, with a clarification that observations were confined to the petition and would not prejudice the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) are liable to be quashed for being frivolous, vague, and lacking material to establish proximate negligence on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that mere occurrence of an accident does not automatically fasten criminal liability. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in *Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther v. State of Maharashtra* to assert that direct and reckless negligence must be established, which is absent here. He further contended that the defective pole was procured from an approved vendor, and the vendor's failure to supply a quality report and CSPDCL's lack of inspection were the real causes. He also pointed out that the manufacturer/vendor, who bears product liability, was not made an accused. The petitioner also argued that his deposit of compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act demonstrated the absence of mens rea. Revenue/State's arguments: The State/Respondent did not explicitly present arguments in the provided text, but the Court's findings indicate that the prosecution alleged failure on the part of the contractor in providing proper quality electric poles and negligence in not providing safety equipment.