The court emphasized the need for sound and indubitable material to rule out the assertions contained in the charges leveled against the accused and highlighted the requirement for a rash and negligent act to attract the offence under Section 304-A IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J.

These two petitions are filed with a prayer to quash the proceeding initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.332/2011 pending before III Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Vijayapur arising out of Crime No.14/2011 of Adarsh Nagar Police Station, Vijayapur.

2. The facts leading to these two petitions are that on 05.03.2011 one Ashok S/o Siddappa Devapur, resident of Kakandaki village, Taluk and District Vijayapur had filed a complaint before Adarsh Nagar Police, Vijayapur alleging that his son aged about 26 years was working in RNS Motors Showroom at Vijayapur for the past two years and he was doing painting work. His employer was also entrusting other works. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.16051/2013 was the Manager of the said showroom. The complainant had requested the Manager Mounesh to entrust the painting work alone to his son Vijay and not to engage him for other works. On 03.03.2011, the complainant's son Vijay had left the house in the morning at about 8.30 a.m. to attend the work in the showroom. Later, at about 11.00 a.m., the friend of his son by name Iqbal who was also working in the said showroom made a phone call and informed that his son Vijay while doing work on the roof, fell down, as a result of which he has sustained head injury and has become unconscious. The injured Vijay was taken to BLDE Hospital, Vijayapur. The complainant and his wife came to the hospital and noticed that their son Vijay had sustained head injuries and there was bleeding in the ears and he was not in a condition to speak. The colleagues of his son namely Iqbal and Kumar Singh had informed that the Manager of the showroom had forcibly engaged their son Vijay to bring some articles kept on the roof. While getting down from the roof along with the articles, he fell down, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Due to the negligence of the Manager and the owner of the showroom, the said incident has occurred. On account of the injuries sustained while discharging his duty in the showroom, the complainant's son expired on 05.03.2011, in the morning hours at 7.30 a.m. After recording the evidence of the complainant, the police have registered the case in Crime No.14/2011 and have filed the charge sheet after completion of the investigation, which is registered as C.C.No.332/2011.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused the records. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has remained absent. As such, this Court had no opportunity to hear the submissions of the complainant.

4. The main grounds urged by learned counsel for the petitioners are that initiation of proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 is abuse of process of the Court. Absolutely, no evidence is made out against the petitioners herein. The complaint averments do not make out a case whether the petitioners were present at the time of the alleged incident. The deceased Vijay was negligent in climbing on the plastic sheets because, on account of gross negligence, the deceased Vijay fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioners are nowhere connected with the said case. The complaint is filed with vindictive motive. The petitioners were not present at the place of the incident. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.7166/2011 is one of the Director of the said showroom and he cannot be held liable when he was not involved in the alleged acts. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.16051/2013 being the Manager was not responsible for the alleged incident.

5. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader, the point that arises for consideration is:

"Whether there are any grounds to invoke the extraordinary power vested to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the proceedings against these petitioners?"

6. Normally this Court which is vest