ORDER :

1. Heard Mr.A.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.Avinash Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State.

2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of the impugned order dated 5.3.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham in Criminal Revision No.4/2016 and also prayed for quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham in Criminal Case No.1770/2015.

3. Undisputed facts of the case are that on 18.12.2014 an informant namely Shatrughan Dhurve gave a morgue intimation No.30/2014 to the Police Station Bodla, District Kabirdham to the effect that on 16.12.2014 at about 7 p.m. his father namely Lehruram Dhruve (since deceased) went missing in respect of which he lodged a missing report at Police Station Bodla. Thereafter on 18.12.2014 in morning while the informant along with other villagers were searching Lehruram Dhurve, they found that Lehruram was lying dead in a ditch containing water near the school belonging to the present petitioner, which was under construction in Bodla.

4. The police of Police Station Bodla after going through the morgue intimation, postmortem report and place of spot, recorded the statements of the witnesses namely Shatrughan Dhurve, Ramchandra Dhurve, Bharat Lal, Ranjan Dhurve and on the basis of aforesaid investigation, offence under Section 304A of the IPC was registered against the petitioner on 24.10.2015 and thereafter on 30.11.2015 the police of Police Station Bodla filed the chargesheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kabirdham on the basis of allegation and preliminary evidence, registered the case for offence under Section 304A of the IPC. On 9.2.2016 the learned trial Court found that there was enough substance of accusation and particular of the offences under Section 304A of the IPC and issued summons to the witnesses No.1 and 2.

5. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Court dated 9.2.2016 preferred a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham being Criminal Revision No.4/2016 and by the impugned order dated 5.3.2016 the learned lower revisional Court has dismissed the revision. Hence, this CrMP.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the statements made by two sons of the deceased namely Bharatlal and Shatrughan who have categorically stated that their father i.e. the deceased was not mentally as well as physically sound person and he was not able to stand up without help of the others if he sat or fell down. He would further submit that the order of the learned lower revisional Court is illegal and contrary to law as there is no other provision in CrPC to challenge the particulars of offence or framing of charges except by way of criminal revision. Deceased Lehruram died due to falling in ditch situated in land of the petitioner. There was no reason or occasion for the deceased to go in the private land of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held negligent for death of Lehruram. He would also submit that if the whole prosecution story is accepted in its totality, no offence is made out against the petitioner. The ingredients of Section 304A of the IPC is not made out against the present petitioner as the proximate cause resulting in death of the deceased must be positively proved. As such, the impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kabirdham in Criminal Revision No.4/2016 and the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Criminal Case No.1770/2015 deserve to be quashed. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sushil Ansal v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 6 SCC 173.

7. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State would oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that no case for indulgence of t