Facts in brief which has led to the filing of this petition are:

At the time of shooting of a Kannada Regional Language film by name “Mastigudi” on 07.11.2016 at Thippagondanahalli lake, Tavarekere, Magadi Taluk, deceased Sriyuths Anil and Uday (stunt actors) were to enact jumping together from a Helicopter along with the film Hero one Sri Duniya Vijay to the water. During such act, the stunt actors Sriyuths Anil and Uday got drowned in the water and as a result, both succumbed. However, the film Hero Sri Duniya Vijay came to be rescued. Smt.D Anasuya, in-charge Superintendent - BWS&SB, Chamarajasagara, Thippagondahalli Dam, Tavarekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk lodged a complaint on these lines, which complaint came to be registered in Crime No.403/2006 against the petitioners herein by arraigning them as accused Nos.1 to 5 and on completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.263/2017 before the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, petitioners are seeking for quashing of the final report/charge sheet in C.C.No.263/2017.

2. In view of charge sheet having been filed for the offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 IPC, the jurisdictional Magistrate by order dated 24.07.2017 has committed the case to the Sessions Judge and it has been numbered as S.C.No.77/2017 and now pending on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.

3. Heard the arguments of Sriyuths Murthy Dayanand Naik, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri Pavana Chandra Shetty for petitioners and Sri Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent- State. Perused the records.

4. It is the contention of Sri Murthy Dayanand Naik, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that complaint allegations do not make out alleged offence under Section 304 IPC and a perusal of same would clearly disclose that it is a case of alleged negligence and there being no ingredients of causing death with such an intention, prosecution is not justified in falsely implicating petitioners for the said offence. He would also draw the attention of the Court to the permissions granted by the statutory authorities to shoot the film and also contend that even the parents or relatives of the deceased have not alleged that petitioners had caused the death and as such there is no offence punishable under Section 304 IPC.

4.1. He would elaborate his submission by contending that incident had taken place under the principle of ‘Act of God’ and not under the offence of ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. He would submit that deceased were stunt artists as certified by their Registered Association and in view of the fact of Association having cleared the responsibility of the stunt Director, he cannot be implicated for the said offence.

4.2. He would also submit that ingredients of Section 304 IPC is not made out by the Investigating Officer, no weapon or articles have been used to cause the death and there was no assault against deceased persons, as such, question of offence under Section 304 IPC having been committed by petitioners would not arise. He would further submit that there was no intention on the part of the petitioners to kill deceased Sriyuths Uday and Anil and there was no criminal act whatsoever committed by the petitioners for being charged for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC and at the most, it may be a case of contributory negligence.

4.3. He would also contend that for an offence under Section 304 IPC to be made out, following ingredients are to be satisfied :

(1) it must be sudden fight;

(2) there must be pre-meditation;

(3) the act was must in a heat of passion; and

(4) the assailant had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.

He would contend that in the instant case there was no motive or intention on the part of the petitioners to commit the alleged offence and the d