Company “Miserably Failed” In Putting Safety Signs Causing Death Of Commuter: Madhya Pradesh HC Dismisses Plea To Quash FIR Against 'Owner'

The Court held that as the company's partial owner, the applicant was responsible for the execution of work conducted by his company. An FIR was registered against the applicant under Sections 304-A and 34 of the IPC, alleging that during the widening of a culvert by the applicant, no warning sign was put up by the company or the applicant to inform commuters. Consequently, a commuter fell into a ditch and lost his life.

A Single Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed, “In present case also there is a breach of safety by the company partially owned by the applicant as they had miserably failed in putting safety signs on either side of the culvert so as to prevent any accident of a road user. The accident took place on account of non-putting of safety signs, as a result the deceased went straight and fell down in a ditch resulting in his death.”

Sr. Advocate Manish Datt appeared for the applicant, while GA Mohan Sausarkar represented the respondent.

The applicant argued that as the Managing Director of the company, he should not be held vicariously liable for the offence committed by the company.

However, the High Court pointed out that the applicant was not just the Managing Director of the company, but also its partial owner evidenced by the Power of Attorney, which specified him as a partner.

“There is a difference between a partner and Managing Director. Partner is a coowner of the company. Although, the Managing Director may share same responsibility as a partner but they are not the partner of the Firm but they are paid salary. The Managing Director is a paid employee with performance based bonuses whereas a partner is an owner with share in the profit. Thus, it is clear that applicant is the owner of the company and not the Managing Director of the company,” the Court remarked.

The Court The Court noted the breach of safety by the company partially owned by the applicant as they had miserably failed to put safety signs on either side of the culvert to prevent any accident of a road user.

“So far as non impleadment of company as accused is concerned, there is no bar in impleading the company as an offender at later stage. The Court in exercise of power under Section 190, 193 and 319 of Cr.P.C. can always summon an additional person as an accused,” the Court explained.

Consequently, the Bench held, “Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the application.

Cause Title: P.D. Agrawal v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Appearance:

Applicant: Senior Advocate Manish Datt; Advocate Ishan Tignath

Respondent: GA Mohan Sausarkar

Click here to read/download the Order