Criminal proceedings for negligent death require a prima facie nexus between the accused and the fatal act.

The informant alleged that his son, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was taken by co-accused Radha Kishun Choubey on 21 November 2011 to work as a labourer.

After a dispute regarding payment of wages, the accused allegedly killed him by electrocution or other means and covered his body with a quilt.

The FIR was initially registered under Section 302 IPC.

Following investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 304A/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”), and the Magistrate took cognizance of those offences on 17 November 2016.

The petitioners sought quashing of the cognizance order, contending that the deceased’s death was an accidental electrocution caused by non-insulated wires used by co-accused Md. Sarfuddin for supplying generator electricity, and that no offence was made out against them.

1. Whether the materials collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioners under Section 304A read with Section 34 IPC for causing death by a negligent act.

2. Whether the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act were satisfied in the absence of any allegation that the petitioners intentionally insulted or intimidated the deceased or his family members by caste-based abuse in a public place.

3. Whether continuation of the criminal proceedings and the order taking cognizance amounted to an abuse of the process of the Court warranting quashing.

Section 304A IPC criminalises causing death by a rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide; Section 34 IPC requires participation in a criminal act pursuant to a common intention.

Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, as applicable to the case, required intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate in a place within public view.

The High Court applied the principles governing exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, including the categories identified in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

It also referred to Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, for the principle that summoning an accused is a serious matter and requires judicial application of mind to the materials on record.

The investigation indicated that Md. Sarfuddin was supplying electricity through generator sets using non-insulated wires, and the deceased’s fellow labourers stated that the death resulted from accidental electrocution caused by those wires.

Since the petitioners had no connection with the generation or transmission of electricity, the Court held that any negligence leading to the death could not be attributed to them.

Consequently, the essential basis for proceeding against them under Section 304A/34 IPC was absent.

The Court also noted the absence of any allegation that the petitioners had used caste-based insults or otherwise committed the specific acts required under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

In these circumstances, continuation of the proceedings was held to constitute an abuse of the process of the Court.

It held that the investigation did not disclose their involvement in any negligent act causing the deceased’s electrocution and that the ingredients of the alleged SC/ST Act offence were not established.

Accordingly, the order dated 17 November 2016 taking cognizance under Sections 304A/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was quashed, and the criminal miscellaneous application was allowed.