Case title: S. Rajgopal V. State of Haryana and Ors.
Case No.: CRM-M No.34999-2019 (O&M)
Decided on: 02.04.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Harpreet Singh Brar.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The incident leading to the case involved the death of the complainant’s minor son in a fatal accident allegedly caused by potholes on the road. Three different versions of the incident emerged over time, with initial reports suggesting it was an unfortunate accident, while later versions implicated a rashly driven vehicle hitting the child. The complainant alleged negligence on the part of the petitioners, who were Directors of L&T, in maintaining the road, leading to the fatal accident. This chain of events triggered the filing of a Supplementary Chargesheet and summoning orders against the petitioners, which they sought to quash due to lack of direct evidence linking them to the incident and deficiencies in the charges brought against them.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provisions involved in the case included Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with causing death by negligence. The case also discussed the principles of vicarious liability in criminal law, emphasizing the need for specific legislative mandates to impose such liability on Directors of a Company. Additionally, the case referred to Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which specifically addresses vicarious liability in cases related to dishonor of cheques.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellants contended that there was no direct evidence linking them to the incident, and they were implicated based on incomplete information and lack of specific allegations against them in the Chargesheet. They argued that the summoning orders lacked prima facie satisfaction of their involvement in the alleged offense. The appellants also questioned the integrity of the cause of action, presenting multiple versions of the incident and highlighting the absence of conclusive evidence attributing the accident to their negligence in maintaining the road.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents, represented by the State of Haryana, argued that negligence in road maintenance leading to the fatal accident had been clearly established during the investigation. They contended that the petitioners, as Directors of L&T, were responsible for the accident due to the negligence exhibited in maintaining the road. The State counsel supported the complainant’s arguments by referring to the affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Police, Faridabad, which emphasized the role of the petitioners in the maintenance of the road where the accident occurred.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court analyzed the contentions of both parties and examined the legal principles of vicarious liability and negligence in criminal cases. The court emphasized the need for specific allegations and evidence linking the petitioners, as Directors of L&T, to the alleged offense of negligence leading to the fatal accident. Ultimately, the court found that the summoning orders lacked sufficient reasoning and failed to establish the direct involvement of the petitioners in the incident. As a result, the court quashed the Supplementary Chargesheet and summoning orders against the petitioners, highlighting the importance of establishing a clear causal link and specific allegations in cases of vicarious liability.
The court quashed the impugned summoning order dated 01.05.2019 and the subsequent proceedings arising from it in the interest of justice, equity, and fair play. The court did not express an opinion on the merits of the case but emphasized the importance of establishing a prima facie case before summoning the accused in a criminal case. The court disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications related to the case.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
Click here to read the full judgement.
