To establish criminal liability under IPC Sections 338 and 304, the accused must be proven to have directly caused death or injury without another's intervening negligence.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Syed Khaleel Pasha, appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N. Jagadeesha, learnead Addl.SPP appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following prayer:

"(a). quash the entire proceedings in SC No.1164/2010 under sections 338, 304 read with 34 of IPC, Which is pending on the file of the LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore (CCH-70)

(b) Call for L.C.R

(c) and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. "

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.10866/2023 disposed on 28.11.2022, wherein it has held as follows:

" The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C.No.1164/2010 (Crime No.69/2010) (C.C.No.22563/2010) on the file of the LXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-70) registered for offences punishable under Sections 338 , 304 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri. T. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court qua several other accused have quashed the proceedings against them, which arise out of the very same incident.

4. The petitioner is accused No.7 in S.C.No.1164/2010. the petitioner is also entitled to the same relief that is granted to all the other accused and for the very reasons rendered by this Court.

5. This Court in terms of its order dated 16.09.2022 in Crl.P.No.8556/2022 concerning the co-accused has passed the passed following order:

"3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment of this Court in Crl.P.No.4726/2012, disposed on 21.10.2021. This Court has held as follows:

"7. The petitioner is accused No.18 in S.C.No.1164 of 2010 pending before the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-XV, Bangalore. The reason for the petitioner being arraigned as an accused is the incident that occurred on 23-02-2010 when the fire broke out in Carlton Towers, a commercial complex in the City of Bangalore which took 9 lives and left 70 injured. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused as he is the Director of the Company.

8. The Company which had its office in the same Towers had entered into an agreement for annual maintenance and house-keeping at Carlton Towers with the Carlton Towers Owners Association. The agreement was entered into on 01-05-2009 and it was an annual maintenance contract. On 16-12-2009 M/s Shivaji Electricals was entrusted to rectify the defects in compliance with the Electrical Inspector’s report who had found certain defects in electrification. The defects were rectified by M/s Shivaji Electricals on 17-12-2009 and the same was communicated to the Electrical Inspector, Bangalore East Division under whose jurisdiction the building came.

9. After the said job being entrusted to M/s Shivaji Electricals, the Carlton Towers Owners Association also communicated to the Electrical Inspector that the defects have been rectified by M/s Shivaji Electricals. This communication was sent on 15-02-2010. In the interregnum the petitioner travelled abroad i.e., to the United Kingdom on 31-01-2010 and returned to India on 5-03-2010. A memo along with immigration details is also placed on record which would clearly depict that the petitioner was out of the country from 31-01-2010 up to 5-03-2010. 10. The fire mishap occurred on 23-02-2010. Admittedly the petitioner was not in the country at that point in time. A FIR came to be