V.S.Murughan v. The State Rep. By Its The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-03-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR and CRL.M.P.No.4441 of 2026 1.V.S.Murughan, S/o.Veerasamy, General Manager, Plaza Maintenance and Services Ltd., Office Address: No.769, Anna Salai, Spencer Plaza, Chennai - 600 002.
Residential Address: No.15/9, Damodharapuram 2nd Street, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020.
2.R.Kasturirangan, S/o.M.K.Ramaswamy, Assistant General Manager, Plaza Maintenance and Services Ltd., Office Address: No.769, Anna Salai, Spencer Plaza, Chennai - 600 002.
Residential Address: Old No.146, New No.90, 1st Floor, Venkat Rangam Street, Triplicane, Chennai - 600 005.
3.Krishnakumar, S/o.Jaganathan, Senior Supervisor HV A/C, Plaza Maintenance and Services Ltd., Office Address: No.769, Anna Salai, Spencer Plaza, Chennai - 600 002.
Residential Address: No.16/22, Tholkappiar Street, Pammal, Kancheepuram - 600 075.
Petitioners/A1 to A3 Vs 1/20
1.The State Represented by its, The Inspector of Police, F4 - Thousand Lights Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai.
2.Manikandan, P.
S/o.Palaraman, No.54/47, Ambedkar Street, Mullakolathur, Kancheepuram - 603 109.
3.Umamageswari Srinivasan, W/o.Late Balaji, No.7/57, 'C' Block School Street, MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam, Chennai - 600 106.
(Wife of deceased Balaji, Proprietor of M.R.Turning Works) Representing the legal heirs of the deceased Including minor son Master Shri Ram Respondents PRAYER: The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying to call for the records relating to F.I.R. No.233/2025 dated 25.07.2025 on the file of the 1st respondent, Inspector of Police, F4 - Thousand Lights Police Station, Triplicane District, Chennai and quash the said F.I.R.No.233/2025 and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of Compromise Deed dated 23.01.2026 arrived between the petitioners and 3rd respondent and No Objection affidavit dated 09.01.2026 given by the 2nd respondent.
For Petitioners :
Mr.S.Gopinath For Respondent-1:
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Additional Public Prosecutor 2/20
ORDER
The petitioners/A1 to A3 in Crime No.233 of 2025 for offence under Section 125(a) of BNS, 2023 has filed this quash petition. 2.The gist of the case is that on 25.07.2023 at about 8.15 a.m., the respondent police received information from Government Royapettah Hospital. The police reached there and at that time it was informed that the injured Balaji referred to Kilpauk Medical College Government Hospital for further treatment. The police reached there, found Balaji admitted in the Intensive Care Unit and he was in an unconscious state. Hence, one Manikandan, colleague of Balaji, who was present there, enquired.
He gave a statement that he along with Koteeswaran and Surya were employed under the said Balaji, who was running MR Turning Work and had taken a work contract in Spencer Plaza, Commercial Block at Phase-I for repairing and rectifying Condenser Pump, Pipeline in the AC plant. This job was entrusted by General Manager, Murugan/first petitioner and Assistant Manager, Kasthurirangan/second petitioner and as per the job order, from 23.07.2025 they were working in the site. On 25.07.2023 at about 6.30 a.m. Balaji, Manikandan and Surya went to the pump room for connecting the welding machine to the distribution panel. When the wire was being connected, the distribution box blasted and fire spots came out.
and shouting and crying with pain. Manikandan along with Kotteeswaran secured Balaji and took him to Royapettah Government Hospital. Thereafter he was referred to KMC Hospital and the above case came to be registered. 3.The contention of the petitioner is that the first petitioner is the General Manager, second petitioner is the Assistant General Manager and third petitioner is the Senior Supervisor, High Voltage/AC, all employed in Plaza Maintenance and Services Ltd. On 17.07.2025, the company issued a work order to M.R. Turning Works owned and operated by the deceased Balaji to carry out condenser pump pipe welding work at Phase-I.
The said work order was accepted by Balaji and in the work order in Clause 6 it is specified that the person who takes the work order shall follow all safety requirements at site and provide necessary safety amenities to the workmen and also arrange for insurance cover for the workmen at his cost. Accepting these conditions, the work order was issued and it was expressly agreed to comply with all safety requirements and to provide necessary safety amenities including personal equipment to his workmen at his own cost. On 23.07.2025, a work permit was duly issued to M.R.
(a) Work to be carried out strictly between 11.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. only 4/20
(b)Maximum of four labourers permitted.
(c) Work to be performed only under the knowledge and coordination of the AC Plant In-charge.
(d)Mandatory use of Personal Protective Equipment (e) Work to be carried out only under electrical supervision with assistance from certified electrician.
4.The victim Balaji had been working as a Contractor with the company for 8 years and he was fully aware of all safety protocols, working hours restrictions and requirements to coordinate with the AC plant in-charge and electrician on duty before commencing any work, particularly in highrisk electrical zones. On 25.07.2025 at about 6.30 a.m., Balaji along with his team of workers including the second respondent entered the AC Plant premises without any authorisation and well before the permitted working hours. The Balaji and his team violated the safety protocols by unauthorised entry, not coordinating with the AC Plant in-charge, failed to inform or obtain permission from the AC Plant in-charge/Senior Supervisor. No electrical supervision arranged.
No use of Personal Protective Equipment by the deceased Balaji and his team, without wearing mandatory PPE equipment they entered a high-risk electrical zone, unauthorisedly had access to DP box. In view of the non-compliance of this protocol, the deceased contractor suffered an electric shock on 25.07.2025 at about 6.30 a.m.
Royapettah and later shifted to KMC Hospital. On 26.07.2025 due to complications from smoke inhalation and electric shock the Balaji succumbed to injuries.
5.The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners' company produced the documentary records to show that it was an independent contract and the contractor was issued with detailed work order with comprehensive terms and conditions clearly placing the responsibility for safety compliance on the contractor. Further it is well settled principle of contract law that in case of independent contract, when the contractor is engaged on specific terms and conditions that places the responsibility for safety compliance on the contractor, then the principal/company cannot be held criminally liable for accidents arose due to violation of safety protocol by the contractors.
The company though having no legal or moral responsibility for the unfortunate incident and it was contributory negligence on the part of the contractor in own violation of the safety protocol, but considering the long association of contractor with the petitioners' company and on humanitarian considerations and sympathy towards the bereaved family, an amicable settlement with the legal heir of deceased Balaji, namely, the third respondent Umamageswari entered and on the request of the family, financial assistance of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of demand draft No.
dated 08.01.2026 paid. Further, the educational support of Rs.35,000/- per annum for the minor son Shriram of the deceased, who is presently studying 1st standard, till the completion of his higher secondary education was agreed. Further regular work orders to M.R.Turning Works based on prequalified L-1 quotation subject to other conditions would be awarded thereby ensuring business continuity for the family of the deceased. Hence, on the factual and legal aspects though the petitioners cannot be strapped for the accident, it was contributed by the deceased own act, on the compromise entered with the wife of the deceased the case against the petitioners to be quashed.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on receipt of information from Government Royapettah Hospital about a patient brought in for electric shock and Accident Register No.03155338 registered, the respondent police rushed to Royapettah Government Hospital wherein it was informed that injured was taken to KMC Hospital for further treatment. The respondent police went there, found Balaji admitted in the Intensive Care Unit and he was in an unconscious state. Hence Manikandan, co-worker, who brought Balaji, was enquired, his statement recorded, who narrated that on 25.07.2025 at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased Balaji, Manikandan and Surya all the three were near the pump room. To connect 7/20
the welding machine, the deceased Balaji opened high voltage distribution panel and there was a huge electric shock, in which he sustained shock and thereafter he was taken to hospital. Recording the same, F.I.R. registered. During investigation, it was found that the said Balaji succumbed to the shock on 26.07.2025. It was also found that the Balaji is a regular contractor for repairing and refitting of pipes in AC plant condenser pump and pipe line and for the past 8 years the petitioners' company entrusted the work to Balaji, who is the Proprietor of M.R.Turning Works, Royapettah, Chennai. He further submitted that the third respondent is the wife of deceased Balaji. They have a son, who is studying 1st standard. Now Umamageshwari entered into a compromise on condition that the educational expenses of the minor son to be paid and the further the contract work to be continued with the third respondent. It is also submitted that even after the death of Balaji, the work was entrusted and the third respondent/wife have been carrying on the contracts.
7.The third respondent, wife of deceased Balaji appeared before this Court. On enquiry, she confirmed the compromise entered between them and she had given a letter to withdraw the complaint and she is not interested to further continue the prosecution against the petitioners. She also filed an affidavit confirming the same. She also confirmed that after the demise of 8/20
her husband Balaji, M.R.Turning Works continued to do contract work after July, 2025 and she confirmed the ledger account of M.R.Turning Works and contract work up to Feb, 2026 to the tune of Rs.16,96,283/- and out of the work they also received good income. She further agreed to the payment of school fee for her son, who is studying in Holy Queen Matric Higher Secondary School, Chrompet, Chennai.
8.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material, it is seen that the petitioners are General Manager, Assistant General Manager and AC Plant incharge employed in Plaza Maintenance and Services Ltd., a well known shop and office complex. The petitioners were entrusted with job/contract for repairing and rectifying Condenser Pump, Pipeline in the AC plant. The work was entrusted to M.R.Turning Works in which, the deceased Balaji is the Proprietor and as an independent contractor, for the past 8 years, Balaji has been carrying on the work. On 25.07.2023, Balaji sustained electric shock and later he succumbed to the shock injuries. The medical records confirm that the incident took place at about 6.30 a.m. The victim was taken to Royapettah Government Hospital within a short time and thereafter shifted to KMC Hospital. The F.I.R. registered for rash and negligence and for accident. The work order confirms that work to be carried out between 11.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. and the mandatory requirement is, all to 9/20
wear personal protective equipment and work to be carried out under the electrical supervision with assistance from certified electrician. In this case, admittedly, the deceased carried out the work at about 6.00 a.m., sustained shock injury at about 6.30 a.m., which is well before the time allotted and what was the PPE provided by the contractor owned by Balaji is not known. Without taking protection, opening of the high voltage distribution panel caused electric shock and spark.
9.The contention of the petitioners is that due to Balaji's contribution and negligence, accident took place. But the prosecution case is that the petitioners' not ensured that safety protocol followed or not. Be that as it may. Now the issue between the petitioners and the deceased family resolved. Further the petitioners' company already paid Rs.3,00,000/- by way of demand draft on 08.01.2026 favouring the third respondent and also gave an undertaking to pay the school fee of Rs.35,000/- for the academic year till the deceased/Balaji's son Shriram completes his schooling. Further undertakes to continue with the contract work with M.R.Turning Works/third respondent.
10.This Court during interaction found that the school fee may not remain fixed as the victim's son progress in education and years to come. 10/20
There might be increase in fee structure, hence suggested for some amount may be deposited in the name of Master. Shriram for a period of 10 years and the interest accruing from Fixed Deposit can be used for the educational purpose of Master. Shriram. It was agreed upon and additional affidavit of first petitioner filed confirming the deposit amount of Rs.5,50,000/- made on 26.03.2026 in the name of Master. Shri Ram and Mrs.Umamageswari for a period of years in Customer I.D.No.R65975512, A/c.No.016510FP00000014 in Punjab National Bank, Chennai Mount Road Branch and the copy of the FD receipt also produced. A scanned reproduction of the FD receipt reads as follows: 11/20
11.The second respondent/de facto complainant, Manikandan has no objection for quashing of the F.I.R. and filed affidavit to that effect. Both the parties have filed a Joint Compromise Memo, which is extracted hereunder: 12/20
13/20
14/20
15/20
16/20
17/20
18/20
12. As the parties have now amicably settled the issue among themselves, they seek to quash the First Information Report as against the petitioners.
13. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and the First Information Report in Crime No.233 of 2025, pending on the file of the first respondent police, is quashed as against the petitioners. The petitioners are discharged from all charges.
14. The affidavits, No Objection affidavit and the Joint Compromise Memo filed by the petitioners and the second and third respondents for compromising the offences shall form part of the records. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 27-03-2026 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order rsi 19/20
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi To 1.The Inspector of Police, F4 - Thousand Lights Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai.
2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
and CRL.M.P.No.4441 of 2026 27.03.2026 20/20