MUMBAI: The Bombay high court refused to quash an FIR of negligence leading to the death of a labourer after a settlement was reached between the parties, saying an issue of public policy was involved. A 20-year-old labourer had died after falling from the 13th floor of an under-construction building in Jogeshwari (W) in 2018.
Justices Sunil Shukre and Milind Sathaye dismissed a petition by the supervisor of M/s Urmila Traders and Co to quash the FIR registered under section 304A (causing death by negligence) with the consent of the complainant, the deceased’s uncle.
The uncle’s advocate said there had been an amicable settlement and his client has filed an affidavit of consent to quash the FIR over the February 12, 2018 incident.
The judges noted that the uncle’s basic allegation was gross negligence of the supervisor, who did not provide helmet, safety belt, nets, etc because of which his nephew fell from a height and succumbed to his injuries. “We are of the prima facie view that had the safety measures been taken by the supervisor, who was under a legal duty to take those measures, vital injuries perhaps could have been avoided,” said the judges in an order last month.
The judges added that the case involves “an issue of public policy” as there was a legal duty imposed on the employer to provide all safety equipment to labourers working on highrises, and he failed giving rise to the case of gross negligence on the part of the supervisor. “Therefore, in our view, this is not a fit case for accepting settlement between the parties,” they added.
The supervisor’s advocate said the parents of the deceased have consented to settling the dispute and received Rs 7.8 lakh insurance payout. “By accepting some amount, the family and accused cannot always settle the crime outside court unless the crime is private in nature and/or has civil flavour and is not against public policy,” said the judges. They explained that the court is required to look at other factors such as seriousness and nature of the crime, antecedent of the accused and violation of public policy. Dismissing the petition, the judges directed the railway magistrate to expedite the trial.
Justices Sunil Shukre and Milind Sathaye dismissed a petition by the supervisor of M/s Urmila Traders and Co to quash the FIR registered under section 304A (causing death by negligence) with the consent of the complainant, the deceased’s uncle.
The uncle’s advocate said there had been an amicable settlement and his client has filed an affidavit of consent to quash the FIR over the February 12, 2018 incident.
The judges noted that the uncle’s basic allegation was gross negligence of the supervisor, who did not provide helmet, safety belt, nets, etc because of which his nephew fell from a height and succumbed to his injuries. “We are of the prima facie view that had the safety measures been taken by the supervisor, who was under a legal duty to take those measures, vital injuries perhaps could have been avoided,” said the judges in an order last month.
The judges added that the case involves “an issue of public policy” as there was a legal duty imposed on the employer to provide all safety equipment to labourers working on highrises, and he failed giving rise to the case of gross negligence on the part of the supervisor. “Therefore, in our view, this is not a fit case for accepting settlement between the parties,” they added.
The supervisor’s advocate said the parents of the deceased have consented to settling the dispute and received Rs 7.8 lakh insurance payout. “By accepting some amount, the family and accused cannot always settle the crime outside court unless the crime is private in nature and/or has civil flavour and is not against public policy,” said the judges. They explained that the court is required to look at other factors such as seriousness and nature of the crime, antecedent of the accused and violation of public policy. Dismissing the petition, the judges directed the railway magistrate to expedite the trial.
