1. Seeking to quash the case in C.C.No.6260 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, the petitioner who is the second accused in the case has come up with this petition.

2. This petition originally came up for final hearing before the Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.T. Selvam on 01.12.2009. On hearing both sides, the learned Judge was pleased to quash the said proceedings in so far as the petitioner/second accused is concerned. The first accused has not moved any such petition to quash the case. Challenging the order passed by this Court dated 01.12.2009, the second respondent, who is the defacto complainant in this case had filed Criminal Appeal No.1005 of 2004 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 13.07.2012, set aside the order of this Court, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to this Court for fresh hearing in accordance with law. The operative portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as follows:-

"For the reason that it is a case under Section 304A IPC and allegations of contributory negligence has been made against the respondent, it was expected of the High Court to record proper reasons discussing the allegations made in the FIR and the proceedings taken out before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate. For lack of proper reasoning, we set aside the impugned order, allow the appeal and remand the matter to the High Court for fresh hearing in accordance with law."

3. This matter has been now listed before me as a specially ordered case on the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. I have heard Mr. V. Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr. R. Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the second respondent and I have also perused the records carefully.

4. Before adverting into the issues involved in this petition, let us have a quick look into the facts of the present case. The petitioner is a member of the Trust known as "Avvai Kalai Kazhagam". The said Trust had a swimming pool, where it offered training for swimming for the children between the age group of 5 and 15. An advertisement was made in this regard offering such training at the cost of Rs.1,200/-. The first accused in this case is one Mr. Rama Krishnan. He was appointed by the Trust as a Trainer.

5. The defacto complainant's son, one S. Balasunder aged 6 years. Attracted by the above advertisement, the second respondent/defacto complainant admitted his son to learn swimming under the said Trust by paying Rs.1,200/-. On 15.04.2006, the defacto complainant had dropped his son in the custody of the first accused/Mr. Rama Krishnan for the purpose of training at 2.30 p.m. At about 4.00 p.m., he received a call through his cell phone that his son Mr. Balasunder had been admitted in a hospital in unconscious state. He rushed to the hospital and found that his son died of drowning. He made a complaint in this regard to the first respondent, on which, a case in Crime No.700 of 2006 under Section 304(A) I.P.C., was registered against Mr. Rama Krishnan.

6. During the course of investigation, the body of the deceased was sent for post mortem. The Doctor who conducted post mortem gave opinion that the deceased died of asphyxia due to drowning. Many witnesses including one Baskar, Kalimuthu, Manokaran, Murthy, Kaleeswaran, Sundara Mahalingam and Srinivasan were examined. All these witnesses have stated that the deceased who was standing by the side of the swimming pool, accidentally, slipped into the swimming pool, which was not noticed by anybody. Immediately, somebody jumped into the water and rescued the boy. He was given first aid and on the way to hospital, he died. Based on these materials, the first respondent laid a final report against the first accused Mr. Rama Krishnan as well as the petitioner/second accused herein.

7. According to the final report,