Haharo Bridge Collapse: Jharkhand HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against Engineer Accused Of Poor Supervision

The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 191 of 2017 and the ensuing proceedings for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR followed an inspection of a bridge over the Haharo river, which had collapsed; the petitioner was alleged to have failed to supervise its construction properly.

He argued that the bridge’s design had been changed, that he was not responsible for structural design or later maintenance, and that sand removal and heavy rain caused the damage. The State and the informant opposed quashing, relying on statements and case-diary materials alleging that the petitioner was responsible for supervising construction.

The investigation was ongoing when the petition was decided. The informant, Opposite Party No. 2, had died, and the Court allowed her name to be deleted from the cause title.

The petitioner invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to seek quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings. The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 406 and 409 IPC.

The Court applied the principle that quashing was not warranted at this stage where the allegations, if accepted as true, made out the offences alleged; matters advanced as the accused’s defence could be placed before the investigating officer and, if necessary, raised before the trial court. No precedent was cited.

The Court found direct and specific allegations that the petitioner, while responsible for supervising the bridge’s construction, had enabled payment for substandard work, causing loss to the State.

It also noted that the case diary contained material and witness statements supporting the allegation of his supervisory responsibility. The petitioner’s explanations concerning design, sand removal, rainfall and maintenance were treated as defences for consideration during investigation or at the appropriate stage before the trial court, rather than grounds to terminate the proceedings at that point. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, the Court declined to quash the case.

Any interim relief was vacated.