The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

proceedings in C.C.No.28916 of 2021 pending before the Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out of Crime No.249

of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Section 304A

r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri P.N.Nanja Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Nishad, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as

borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-

3

The petitioner is an Architect Engineer by profession and is

the

co-founder

of

Crest

Architects,

Bangalore.

One

Chandrashekar, owner of a residential site situated at 20^th Main,

4^th Block bearing No.403 of Nandini Layout approaches the

petitioner to design his house. Upon inspecting the property

personally, the petitioner took the dimensions of the property

and owner9s requirements for drawing up a design. The owner of

the site agreed to the terms of the petitioner and entered into an

agreement to design his house on 25-09-2019. In terms of the

agreement, the petitioner fulfilled the requirement of the owner

as per law. The construction of the building and the plan of

action for such construction was entrusted to a contractor by

the site owner. The petitioner had only drawn up the design and

had also visited the site on several occasions to see whether the

construction was coming up according to the design. The visits,

according to the petitioner were once in a month.

4. On 10-10-2020 an employee by name Mukesh who was

working under the contractor died due to electrocution while

4

undertaking construction in the site. It is averred by the

petitioner in the petition that he came to know about the

incident so happened on 10-10-2020 only when he attended

house warming ceremony of the house on an invitation by the

owner in the month of February 2021. On 17-02-2022 the

petitioner comes to know of a crime registered against him by

the Police in Crime No.249 of 2020. The petitioner was accused

No.2 and the owner of the building Mr. Chandrashekar was

accused No.3. The allegation in the crime was concerning the

incident that happened on 10-10-2020 i.e., the death of the

employee Mr. Mukesh due to electrocution. After registration of

the crime, the Police conducted investigation and filed a charge

sheet only against the petitioner dropping the owner who was

accused No.3 for offences punishable under Section 304A r/w

34 of the IPC. It is at that juncture the petitioner has knocked

the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question

the entire proceedings in C.C.No.28916 of 2021.

5

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently argue and contend that the allegation for offence

punishable under Section 304A IPC cannot be laid against the

petitioner, as the petitioner was only an Architect who designed

the house and it was for the contractor or the owner of the

property to have taken such caution to prevent such mishap

viz., death of the employee. The owner of the property is let off

while filing the charge sheet against the petitioner who is the

Architect and has nothing to do with the mishap. He would seek

quashment of the proceedings.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for

the 2^nd respondent/complainant who is the relative of the

employee would seek to justify the action of the police in filing

the charge sheet against the petitioner, as according to him the

design provided by the petitioner was the cause for the death of

the worker and would submit that since charge sheet is filed, it

is for the petitioner to come out clean.

6

7. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also

toe the lines of the 2^nd respondent.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

9. The afore-mentioned facts are not in dispute. On

10.1