ORDER

1. By this petition preferred under sused has prayed for quashment of FIR registered at Police Station Makdon, District Ujjain against him vide Crime No.238 of 2022 for offences punishable under Section 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code, charge sheet No.01/2022 and the consequential proceedings of the trial pending before the trial Court.

2. As per the prosecution, on 2.6.2022 a report was lodged by complainant Badrilal Bagari to the effect that he has been working as a helper in the electricity department at Rupakhedi for about three years. On 18.9.2021 at about 11:00 am he had reached the electricity office at Rupakhedi grid. There he was met by JE Harish Suryavanshi, the petitioner, who said that the electricity line of Rupakhedi is damaged and he has not repaired the same. The complainant said that when the lineman comes he will do the repair. The petitioner then told him that it is he who has kept him in the job and not the lineman and that he has taken the permit and the complainant should climb the pole and repair the line. The complainant then took his tools and climbed the pole and started working when the current from the electricity line hit him on his right hand and left leg as a result of which he fell down. He was taken to the hospital where he underwent extensive treatment for a considerable period of time and is still undergoing such treatment. The accident was a result of recklessness and negligence on part of the petitioner which has resulted in amputation of his right hand from below the joint.

3. On lodging of the report by the complainant, investigation was commenced by the Police during course of which statements of witnesses were recorded and documents were collected. 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 him.

4. This petition has been preferred on the ground that the allegations levelled against the petitioner even if taken to be true at their face value do not make out any offence against the petitioner hence the continuation of proceedings against him would be gross abuse of process of law. There is no evidence against the petitioner and there is nothing to suggest that due to his negligence the complainant has suffered any injury. There has not been any recklessness on part of the petitioner as he could not have imagined that there would be electricity current in the electricity line. He had merely asked the complainant to climb the pole and to repair the line. His act was not which could have in the normal course endangered the life or personal safety of the complainant. It was not his duty to ensure that there was no current in the electricity line. It is hence submitted that the proceedings against the petitioner deserve to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State as well as learned counsel for the complainant 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 considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire charge sheet.

7. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab and Another, AIR 2005 SC, 3180, concept of negligence has been explained by the Supreme Court as under:

"11. The jurisprudential concept of negligence defies any precise definition. Eminent jurists and leading judgments have assigned various meanings to negligence. The concept as has been acceptable to Indian jurisprudential thought is well-stated in the Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (Twenty-fourth Edition 2002, edited by Justice G.P. Singh). It is stated (at p.441- 442) "Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affai