ff Heard the learned cou'ns6l for the petjt[-oners and the learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for the state.

The learned counsel for the petf-tjoners submits that tfle PetI'tI-Oners are employees of Medicover Hdspital, and that the 2nd respondent has filed a complaint alleging an offence under sectI-On 304-A of the IPC, on the file of MaharanI-Peta Police- station, visakhapatnam city. lt I-S submitted that the police have fI-led a charge sheet, holdI-ng the petI-tI-Oners responsl-ble for the offence under sectI-On 304-A of the IPC. I€ is further subml'tted that the 2nd respondentJs father-in-law sustained an injury after falling into the "ft xp8-t! as the lift door opened without the lift having reached the said floor. on account of the saI-d faH the 2nd respondentJs father-in-law passed away, and the present offence under section 304-A IPC was registef6d.

]t is submitted that the I-neident took place at Medicover HospI-tal, and the employees of the hosblu~{al could not have been raped in as accused wI-thOl.It there being a'ny direct nexus between the petI-tI-OnerS and the I-nCident. lt is also submitted that the petI-tiOners are neI-ther the .-, owners of the hospital nor