ORDER :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant-original accused, seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court praying for quashing of the proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 58594/14, pending in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, arising from C.R No. I-151 of 2014 registered with the Umra Police Station, Surat, for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II, read with Section 114 of the IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-

2.1 The applicant before me is an Architect by profession. A building in the name of "Kanaiya Palace", situated at Ghoddod Road, Surat was constructed in the year 1998, to be precise, the construction had commenced in the year 1994 and the same was completed in the year 1998. The applicant had rendered his services as an Architect for the purpose of construction of the said building. In the year 1998 when the construction was completed, it was an eight-storeyed building. On 29th April, 2014, a portion of the slab of flat No.604 collapsed, as a result of which the slabs of the drawing rooms of the other five flats also collapsed. Three persons died on being crushed under the debris and four persons sustained injuries.

2.2 It is the case of the prosecution that the quality of the concrete used was quite inferior and instead of using two way rods, one way rods were used. In such circumstances, the FIR was registered and on completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed, which culminated into Criminal Case referred to above.

3. In this application, the following questions have been raised:-

(a) If any building collapses, after 19 years of its construction and that too after withstanding worst earth-quake of 2001, can it be said that it was constructed with substandard material and whether it can be presumed that it was constructed before 19 years with intention/knowledge to cause death?

(b) What is the meaning of accident and criminal 'negligence' within the meaning of section 304A and section 304 of I.P.C.

(c) Whether in case of the accident, law permits the presumption to treat the accident as negligence in all the cases and what is the meaning of criminal rash or negligent act.

(d) Whether in case of the accident law permits the presumption to treat the accident as 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'.

(e) In what circumstances, it can be said that the act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death within the meaning Part I of section 304 of I.P.C.

(f) In what circumstances, it can be said that the act by which the death is caused is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

(g) what is the meaning of the words "culpable homicide" and what are the ingredients of the words "culpable homicide and what is the difference between the words culpable homicide, the rash or negligent act or the accident.

4. Mr. S.V. Raju, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Nimesh Kapadia, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the collapse of the slab of flat No.604 had nothing to do with the applicant herein being the Architect of the building. He pointed out that the construction had started in the year 1994, but he thought fit to quit the project in the year 1995. It is further pointed out that some reparation work was undertaken on the 6th floor of the building and the tiles of the slab of flat No. 604 were removed, and that ultimately led to the collapse of the slab damaging the other slabs.

5. The principal argument of the learned counsel is that even if the entire case is accepted as true, no case is made out to prosecute the applicant for the offence under Section 304-II of the IPC. To fortify the submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision dated 20th Janua