1 2026:CGHC:21891-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1283 of 2026 1. Himanshu Sharma S/o Anil Kumar Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o Quarter No. 180, Jorapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Sivlahri Hostel, Bamveda, Gujrat. 2. Praveen Kumar Kesari S/o Late Nandlal Kesari Aged About 52 Years R/o Iceland 09 Royal Palmstate R A Colony Goregat East Mumbai (M.H.), Present Address- 1701 Emrald Isle-2, Royal Palm Estate, Aarey Colony, Goregaon East, Distt. Mumbai, (M.H.) 3. Pradeep Nayak S/o Late Dhruba Charan Nayak Aged About 50 Years R/o R.P. Nagar Lig/04 Phase 2 Rampur, Korba, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Savitri Nivas, Hig-B/111, Kaling Vihar Stage B, Phase 3 Chhend, Rourkela, Distt. Sundergarh, Odisha. ... Petitioner(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, P.S. Balco, Distt. Korba, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.05.12 11:03:47 +0530 2 For Petitioners : Mr. Hrishabh Deo Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Samuya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Hrishabh Deo Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Samuya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the instant petition filed by the petitioners and the FIR dated 14.09.2022 bearing Crime No. 539 of 2022 registered at Police Station Balco, District Korba (C.G.) along with the entire charge-sheet and the entire criminal proceedings bearing Criminal Case No. 3632 of 2022, pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class Korba, may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the issue involved in this petition has already been considered and decided by this Court vide judgment dated 13.02.2026 in CRMP No. 728 of 2023, whereby this Court has held as under:- 3 “8. The undisputed facts reveal that the incident in question occurred on 14.02.2022 during the course of maintenance work inside the factory 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. 4 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. 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 5 in criminal law unless specifically provided by statute. The Indian Penal Code does 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, are hereby quashed 6 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.” They further submit that since the facts and issue involved in the present petition is identical to that of CRMP No. 728 of 2023, this petition may also be dismissed in the same terms. 4. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, it is evident that the facts and issue involved in this petition is identical to CRMP No. 728 of 2023, this Court deems it appropriate not to take a view other than what has been taken in CRMP No. 728 of 2023. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 13.02.2026 passed in CRMP No. 728 of 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan