ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Cr.No.629/2016 on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 149, 288, 268, 304, 337 and 338 of IPC.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

A crime is registered against the petitioners on account of collapse of a residential building at the instance of the petitioners, who claim to be the co-owners of the property bearing No.47 situated at Bellandur. On account of such an unfortunate incident, there were six deaths and severe injuries to seven persons and this led to registration of crime for the above said offences. Feeling aggrieved by the registration of the crime for the aforesaid offences, petitioners have filed the captioned petition seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that petitioners who are co-owners have commenced with the construction of residential house after securing necessary sanctioned plan from the competent authority and construction activity over the property was totally handed over to the contractor by name Srinivasulu Reddy, who is accused No.1. Petitioners contend that the construction was exclusively looked after by the contractors and the petitioners had no control over the construction activities. Therefore, petitioners claim that the crime could not have been registered for offences punishable under Section 304 and other offences covered under the IPC. On these set of grounds, the proceedings are sought to be challenged. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-defacto complainant. Perused the materials places on record.

4. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued and tried to persuade this Court to look into the averments made in the complaint to substantiate that the crime could not have been registered for offences punishable under Section 304 of IPC, I am not inclined to accede to the said argument. On account of the collapse of the building which was under construction, six persons have died and seven persons have sustained severe injuries. The petitioners claim that the crime could not have been registered for offences punishable under Section 304 of IPC. On reading the averments made in the complaint, the apprehension of the petitioners that they cannot be prosecuted for offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC is totally misconceived. Even before the Investigating officer could investigate and lay the charge sheet, the petitioners have rushed to this Court and have sought for quashing of the proceedings. The responsibility for a building collapse can depend upon various factors. The cause of collapse and the type of building which led to collapse can be ascertained only by thorough investigation and during trial. In general the responsibility for building collapse could fall on several parties including building owners, contractors and Engineers. The owner of the building is typically responsible for ensuring that the building is constructed in terms of proper structural design. The building owners also have a duty to recognize the structural defects during the course of construction and is under the bounden duty to follow all building codes and safety standards.

5. Having taken note of the gravity of the offences which has led to the death of six persons, this Court is more than satisfied that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings pending consideration of the investigation. The apprehension of the petitioners that they cannot be charge sheeted under Section 304 of IPC is found to be too premature at this juncture. If at all the Investigation Officer on investigation lays a charge sheet and if the petitioners are charged for offences punishable under Section 304 of IPC, it is for the concerned Judge to examine the charge sheet materials and on satisfaction frame charges. Even if the Court were to frame the char