1 2026:CGHC:8008-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 728 of 2023 1 - Soumya Shanta Tripathy S/o Shishir Kant Tripathy Aged About 37 Years R/o 844/c/1 Balco Nagar, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh (At The Relevant Time Was Working As Head Operation Gap) 2 - B. Shivkumar S/o Shri U.S. Balsubramanyam Aged About 53 Years R/o D/14/ Sector-2 Balco, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh (At The Relevant Time Was Working As Head Hse Balco) 3 - Dilip Kumar Patel S/o Loman Chand Patel Aged About 39 Years R/o C- 406/1/ Balco, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh (At The Relevant Time Was Working As Head Maintenance Carbon) 4 - Uttam Kumar Nayak S/o Shyam Sunder Nayak Aged About 53 Years R/o 1/d/23 Balco Nagar, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Village Balyasara, Post Kabisuryanagar, District- Ganjam, Orissa. (At The Relevant Time Was Working As Sbo Head Karban) 5 - Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Rajnarayan Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o D/8 Sector-2, Balco Nagar, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh (At The Relevant Time Was Working As Head Metal Balco) ... Petitioners versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balco, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisarh VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.02.18 17:47:06 +0530 2 2 - Pradeep Nayak S/o Late Dhrut Charan Nayak Aged About 47 Years R/o R/48 Naga, Lig- 04, Phase- 2, Rampur, Korba, Chhattisgarh ............. Respondent/accused 3 - Himanshu Sharma S/o Anil Mkumar Sharma Aged About 31 Years R/o Sivlahri Hostel, Bamveda Gujarat. Permanent Address- Quarter No. 180 Jorapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ................ Respondent/accused 4 - Praveen Kumar Kesari S/o Late Nandlal Kesari Aged About 49 Years R/o 602, Iceland 09 Royal Palm State, R.A. Colony Goregaon (East) Mumbai ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioners : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13/02/2026 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashment of the FIR dated 14.09.2022 bearing Crime No. 539/2022 registered at Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the entire consequential 3 proceedings arising therefrom, including Criminal Case No. 3632/2022 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba. The petitioners contend that no specific allegation or overt act constituting rash or negligent conduct has been attributed to them in the FIR or the charge-sheet and that they have been arraigned as accused solely on account of the positions held by them at the relevant time, which, according to them, amounts to an abuse of the process of law. 2. The facts of the case as emerges from the pleadings of the petition are that, the petitioners, at the relevant point of time, were holding senior managerial positions in BALCO. Petitioner No.1 was working as Head GAP Operation; Petitioner No.2 as Head HSE (Health, Safety and Environment); Petitioner No.3 as Head Maintenance Carbon; Petitioner No.4 as SBU Head Carbon; and Petitioner No.5 as Head Metal. They were not directly engaged in the day-to-day operational supervision of the contractual workforce deployed in the Carbon Plant. *******The prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR, is that on 14.02.2022 an accident occurred within the factory premises of BALCO resulting in the death of one Agas Ram Sahu. The deceased was working as a labourer and was engaged in maintenance work. It is an admitted position that the deceased was an employee of the contractor, namely Thyssen Krupp, which had been awarded a contract for maintenance activities in the Carbon Plant. 4 *******It has been alleged in the FIR that during the course of maintenance work, while a crane was carrying an anode plateau, the deceased got trapped between the stabilizer table and the anode carrier and succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. Allegations were also made that safety arrangements in the anode area were inadequate and that the sirens were not functioning at the relevant time. *******Following the incident, proceedings were initiated under the Factories Act, 1948. The Factory Manager and the Occupier of the factory were prosecuted under Section 92 of the Factories Act for violation of statutory provisions, including Section 7A and Section 41 of the Act read with relevant Rules. By judgment dated 13.05.2022, fines were imposed upon the said officials for contravention of statutory duties. Thus, for the same incident, proceedings under the special enactment governing factory safety had already culminated in conviction and imposition of penalty upon the persons statutorily recognized as responsible under the Act. *******The family members of the deceased have also been paid compensation amounting to approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- by the employer of the deceased, i.e., the contractor Thyssen Krupp, acknowledging the employer-employee relationship between the contractor and the deceased. The responsibility for providing safety equipment and supervision to the deceased lay with the contractor and its supervisory staff. 5 *******It is further the case of the petitioners that the FIR came to be lodged on 14.09.2022, nearly seven months after the date of the incident, without any satisfactory explanation for the delay. According to the petitioners, this belated registration of the FIR was unwarranted, particularly when proceedings under the Factories Act had already been concluded and compensation had been disbursed. *******The petitioners assert that the ingredients of Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted in the present case, as there is no direct, proximate, or efficient cause attributable to them resulting in the death of the deceased. They contend that the continuation of criminal proceedings against them, in absence of specific allegations or material establishing rash or grossly negligent conduct on their part, amounts to abuse of the process of Court. *******In the aforesaid background, the petitioners have approached this Hon’ble Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of the FIR and all consequential proceedings. 3. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that, the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable, as the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR dated 14.09.2022, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not disclose the commission of any offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners. It is submitted that 6 the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. *******Learned counsel submits that the deceased, namely Agas Ram Sahu, was admittedly an employee of the contractor, Thyssen Krupp, which had been awarded the maintenance contract for the Carbon Plant. The deceased was working under the direct supervision and control of the contractor’s supervisory staff. The petitioners were not the immediate supervisors of the deceased nor were they engaged in the day-to-day execution of the maintenance activity being carried out at the site of the accident. *******It is contended that the FIR does not attribute any specific overt act, omission, or individual role to any of the petitioners. The allegations are omnibus and general in nature, merely referring to alleged lapses in safety measures. There is no material in the FIR or the charge-sheet demonstrating how any act of the petitioners constituted rashness or gross negligence so as to directly result in the death of the deceased. *******Learned counsel submits that to attract the provisions of Section 304A IPC, it is essential that the death must be the direct and proximate result of a rash or negligent act of the accused, and such act must be the causa causans and not merely a causa sine qua non. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1 wherein it has been held that for fastening criminal liability under Section 7 304A IPC, a very high degree of negligence amounting to gross negligence or recklessness is required, and mere lack of care or error of judgment is insufficient. *******Learned counsel further submits that immediately after the incident, proceedings were initiated under the Factories Act, 1948. The Factory Manager and the Occupier were prosecuted under Section 92 of the Factories Act for alleged violation of statutory duties under Section 7A and related provisions, and fines were imposed by the competent court by judgment dated 13.05.2022. It is contended that for the very same incident and alleged violations, the present petitioners cannot again be subjected to criminal prosecution under Section 304A IPC in the absence of any independent and specific act attributed to them. *******It is submitted that the deceased being an employee of the contractor, the responsibility of providing safety equipment, training, and immediate supervision lay with the contractor. The material on record demonstrates that compensation of approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- has already been paid to the family members of the deceased by the contractor, acknowledging its employer-employee relationship and corresponding responsibility and compassionate appointment has also been granted to respondent No.4. *******Learned counsel also draws the attention of this Hon’ble Court to the delay in lodging the FIR. The incident occurred on 14.02.2022, whereas the FIR was registered on 14.09.2022, after a lapse of 8 about seven months, without any plausible explanation. Such unexplained delay, particularly when statutory proceedings under the Factories Act had already culminated in conviction and imposition of fine, raises serious doubt regarding the bona fides of the prosecution. *******It is further argued that the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335 squarely apply to the present case. Specifically, the present case falls within the category where the allegations made in the FIR, even if accepted as true, do not prima facie constitute the offence alleged, and where the proceedings appear to have been initiated with an ulterior motive. *******Learned counsel emphasizes that criminal law cannot be set in motion merely on the basis of designation or position held by an individual. Vicarious liability in criminal law is not to be readily inferred unless specifically provided by statute. In the present case, Section 304A IPC does not contemplate vicarious liability, and in absence of specific allegations demonstrating direct negligence, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted merely because they were holding managerial positions at the relevant time. *******In view of the aforesaid submissions and the settled principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction, learned counsel prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the FIR dated 14.09.2022 bearing Crime No. 539/2022 registered at Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.), and all consequential proceedings 9 arising therefrom, including Criminal Case No. 3632/2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, in the interest of justice. 4. At the outset, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No.1/State opposes the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and submits that the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the FIR dated 14.09.2022 bearing Crime No. 539/2022 registered at Police Station Balco, District Korba, and the consequent charge-sheet disclose prima facie commission of cognizable offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage. *******Learned State counsel submits that the scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC is very limited. At the stage of considering a petition for quashment, the Hon’ble Court is only required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the allegations contained in the FIR and the material collected during investigation. It is settled law that the Court should not conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or adjudicate disputed questions of fact, as the same falls within the exclusive domain of the trial court. *******It is submitted that the FIR and the charge-sheet clearly reveal that the deceased Agas Ram Sahu died during the course of maintenance work in the Carbon Plant due to an industrial accident involving an anode carrier. The investigation has revealed that proper 10 safety measures, including functional sirens, safety protocols, and adequate supervision, were not ensured at the site of occurrence. Such lapses directly resulted in the fatal accident. *******Learned State counsel submits that the present petitioners were holding responsible and supervisory positions, namely Head Operation GAP, Head HSE (Health, Safety and Environment), Head Maintenance Carbon, SBU Head Carbon, and Head Metal Balco, respectively, at the relevant time. By virtue of their official positions, the petitioners were under a statutory and legal duty to ensure safe working conditions, proper implementation of safety protocols, and compliance with applicable safety regulations within the factory premises. *******Learned State counsel further submits that the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was an employee of the contractor does not absolve them of criminal liability. The accident occurred within the factory premises under the control and supervision of the management, and the petitioners, being responsible officers, had a duty to ensure that all persons working within the premises, including contractual workers, were provided a safe working environment. *******It is further submitted that during investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded and relevant documents were collected, which disclose lapses in safety measures and supervision. On the basis of such material, the investigating agency has filed the charge- sheet after due investigation. At this stage, the correctness or 11 sufficiency of evidence cannot be examined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. *******It is further submitted that payment of compensation to the family members of the deceased does not extinguish criminal liability. Criminal proceedings are initiated to punish the offender for the offence committed against society, and civil compensation cannot be treated as a substitute for criminal prosecution. *******It is contended that the FIR, charge-sheet, and material collected during investigation clearly disclose the essential ingredients of Section 304A IPC, namely the existence of duty of care, breach of such duty, and death caused as a consequence of such breach. Whether the petitioners are ultimately guilty or not is a matter to be determined after full-fledged trial based on evidence. *******It is therefore respectfully submitted that the petitioners have failed to make out any case for quashment of FIR or criminal proceedings. The petition involves disputed questions of fact, which can only be adjudicated upon by the trial court after appreciation of evidence. 5. Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 & 3 (complainant/private respondents) at the outset, oppose the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and submit that the same is misconceived, premature, and liable to be dismissed. *******It is submitted that the deceased, Agas Ram Sahu, lost his life 12 in a preventable industrial accident within the factory premises of BALCO on 14.02.2022. The accident occurred during the course of maintenance work involving heavy machinery, namely the anode carrier and crane system. The investigation has revealed serious lapses in safety protocols, non-functional warning systems, and lack of adequate supervision in the anode area. *******Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were not ordinary employees but senior managerial and supervisory officers entrusted with operational, maintenance, and safety responsibilities. Petitioner No.2 was Head HSE (Health, Safety and Environment), whose core responsibility was to ensure compliance with safety norms and hazard prevention mechanisms. Petitioner No.1, Petitioner No.3, and Petitioner No.4 were directly connected with plant operations and maintenance of the Carbon unit. Petitioner No.5 was holding a senior managerial position in the Metal division. Their roles inherently involved oversight, supervision, and enforcement of safety standards within the premises. *******It is contended that criminal liability under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code arises when death is caused by rash or negligent act. At this stage, the Court is only required to examine whether the allegations and material collected during investigation disclose a prima facie case. Detailed evaluation of evidence, assessment of individual culpability, or determination of degree of negligence cannot be undertaken in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. 13 *******It is further submitted that the investigation has resulted in filing of a charge-sheet after recording statements of witnesses and collecting relevant documentary material. The material prima facie indicates that safety systems were either inadequate or not properly implemented, and that such lapses contributed to the fatal accident. Whether such lapses amount to gross negligence is a matter of trial. *******Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are attempting to seek adjudication on disputed questions of fact, including nature of duty, extent of supervision, adequacy of safety measures, and proximate cause of death. These are matters requiring evidence and cross-examination, which cannot be determined in summary proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire material available on record including the FIR, charge- sheet and the documents annexed with the petition. 7. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that in compliance of the order dated 05.04.2023, notice was issued to respondent No.4. Despite service of notice, no one has chosen to appear on his behalf to contest the present petition. Respondents No.2 and 3 are proforma parties and have not opposed the relief sought by the petitioners. Thus, there is no serious contest to the factual foundation laid by the petitioners. 8. The undisputed facts reveal that the incident in question occurred on 14.02.2022 during the course of maintenance work inside the factory 14 premises of BALCO, and the deceased, Agas Ram Sahu, was an employee of the contractor, namely Thyssen Krupp. The FIR has been lodged on 14.09.2022, i.e., after a considerable lapse of time from the date of incident. It is also not in dispute that immediately after the incident, proceedings under the Factories Act, 1948 were initiated against the Factory Manager and Occupier, who were prosecuted and punished under Section 92 of the Factories Act for violation of statutory safety provisions. 9. It is further evident from the record that the family members of the deceased have already been paid compensation of approximately Rs. 10,00,000/- by the employer i.e. Thyssen Krupp. Apart from the said monetary compensation, respondent No.4, being the son/legal heir of the deceased, has also been granted compassionate appointment on account of the untimely death of his father. These facts demonstrate that the statutory and contractual liabilities arising out of the unfortunate incident have already been addressed. 10. The principal allegation in the FIR is that due to absence of proper safety arrangements and non-functional warning systems, the deceased met with the fatal accident. However, a careful reading of the FIR and the charge-sheet does not disclose any specific overt act or direct negligence attributable to the present petitioners. The petitioners were holding supervisory or managerial posts at the relevant time. There is no material to demonstrate that any rash or negligent act committed by them was the proximate and efficient cause of death of the deceased. 15 11. The law with regard to Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code is well settled. In order to attract criminal liability, the prosecution must establish that the act of the accused was the causa causans, i.e., the direct and proximate cause of death, without the intervention of another’s negligence. Mere holding of a supervisory post does not ipso facto give rise to criminal liability in absence of specific statutory provision creating vicarious liability. 12. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakaran v. State of Kerala, (2007) 14 SCC 269 wherein it has been held that simple lack of care or civil negligence is not sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 304A IPC; a very high degree of negligence amounting to recklessness is required. It has been further held that negligence must be of such a nature which directly causes the death. 13. This Court, in an identical set of facts in CRMP No. 732 of 2023, while considering similar allegations arising out of an industrial accident in the same establishment, has held that in absence of specific allegations and in the absence of direct nexus between the act of the accused and the death of the deceased, continuation of criminal proceedings under Section 304A IPC would amount to abuse of the process of law. The principles laid down therein squarely apply to the present case. 14. It is also settled that there is no vicarious liability in criminal law unless specifically provided by statute. The Indian Penal Code does 16 not contain any provision creating vicarious liability upon officers of a company merely by virtue of their designation. In the present case, except general allegations regarding safety lapses, there is no material indicating personal negligence or rash conduct on the part of the petitioners. 15. Considering the totality of circumstances — (i) absence of specific allegations against the petitioners, (ii) prior prosecution under the Factories Act, (iii) payment of compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs by the contractor employer, (iv) compassionate appointment granted to respondent No.4, and (v) delay in lodging the FIR, we are of the considered opinion that the essential ingredients of Section 304A IPC are not made out against the petitioners even if the entire prosecution case is taken at its face value. 16. Continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and would not serve the ends of justice. The case falls within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. 17. Accordingly, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The FIR dated 14.09.2022 bearing Crime No. 539/2022 registered at Police Station BALCO, District Korba (C.G.), the charge-sheet filed pursuant thereto, and the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom, including Criminal Case No. 3632/2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, 17 are hereby quashed insofar as they relate to the present petitioners namely; (1) Soumya Shanta Tripathy, (2) B. Shivkumar, (3) Dilip Kumar Patel, (4) Uttam Kumar Nayak and (5) Rajesh Kumar Singh. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved