ORDER :

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. By this petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has prayed for quashment of FIR registered by Police Station Unhel, District Ujjain against him vide Crime No.149/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A of the IPC, charge-sheet dated 30.08.2020 and the entire consequential proceedings of RCT No.908/2020 pending before the trial Court.

3. As per the prosecution, on 16.05.2020 deceased Lal Singh along with one Hakam Singh and others was extracting soil from Lal Singh’s well. From the outside Ram Singh was running the machine while Hakam Singh and others were filling the soil from inside. During course of such work, due to sinking of the soil, Lal Singh along with the machine fell inside the well due to which he and Hakam Singh sustained injuries and eventually succumbed to the same. On receiving the information from the complainant Darbar Singh, two merg were registered and statements were recorded and subsequently it was found that the incident has occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner/accused. Thereafter, the FIR was registered against the petitioner and upon completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Magistrate for the offences as referred to above of which cognizance has been taken by the Judicial Magistrate.

4. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner on the ground that the allegations as leveled in the charge-sheet even if taken to be true at this stage do not make out any offence against the petitioner hence the continuation of the proceedings against him would be gross abuse of process of law. There is no evidence against the petitioner as there is nothing to suggest that due to his negligence the death of the deceased took place. The petitioner had no legal duty imposed upon him since the land on which the incident took place does not belong to him. The material available on record itself shows that the incident occurred due to sinking of the soil hence no role can be attributed to the petitioner. There is no allegation of any haste or negligence on part of the petitioner. No witness examined by the prosecution has alleged that the petitioner was negligent or is responsible for the incident. It is hence submitted that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner in view of which the proceedings against him deserve to be quashed. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab and Another (2005) 6 SCC 1 and of the Gujrat High Court in Kaushik Ambalal Oza and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, ABC 2015(II) 66 Guj.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is sufficient material available on record to proceed with against the petitioner and it cannot be said that no offence as alleged has been committed by him in view of which the petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire charge-sheet.

7. On the record against the petitioner is only the statement of one Wali Mohammad, the choukidar of the village, who has stated that when Ram Singh was digging his well, he had told him not to do so since there is a prohibition in that regard but even thereafter he got certain persons to dig the well. He has not stated that in the matter of drilling the well there was any negligence on part of the petitioner or that he did not exercise due care and caution for ensuring safety of the persons digging the well as a result of which the incident took place resulting in death of two persons. On the contrary, all the other witnesses examined on part of the prosecution have categorically stated that the machine fell into the well on account of sinking of the soil. None of the witnesses have stated that there was any negligence on par