Criminal liability under IPC for negligence requires direct causation and gross negligence must be established; absence of presence at the incident absolves the petitioner of responsibility.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner is accused No.12 qua all the other accused, this Court or the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have quashed the proceedings. I deem it appropriate to notice the order passed by this Court.

The petitioner/accused No.1 in Sessions Case No.1164 of 2010 pending before the 69th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question continuance of proceedings in the aforesaid Sessions case registered for offences punishable under Sections 304 and 338 read with Section 34 of the IPC .

2. Heard Sri S. Shankarappa, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

It is the case of the prosecution that on 23-02-2010 fire broke out in Carlton Towers, a commercial complex in the City of Bangalore at 4.20 p.m. resulting in 9 persons losing their lives and 70 people getting injured. The petitioner along with 20 accused were drawn into the web of crime on the score that their acts were rash and negligent and, therefore, would attract offences punishable under Sections 304 and 338 of the IPC . The crime comes to be registered in Crime No.69 of 2010. The petitioner is accused No.1. The respondent-police initially filed a charge sheet and later on, an additional charge sheet. Today it is only the petitioner who remains in the entire web of crime to be proceeded against, as proceedings against all the other accused have been quashed. It is, therefore, the petitioner has now knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition, seeking quashment of proceedings against him as well.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri S. Shankarappa taking this Court through the orders passed by 4 this Court quashing the proceedings against all other accused would submit that the petitioner also stands on the same footing, as the petitioner was not even present in the Commercial complex at the time when the mishap took place. The entire mishap happens due to accused No.21 installing cable duct and the cable duct was used to supply power to the shops. The short circuit that happened in the cable duct has resulted in the mishap. The allegation is directly against accused No.21 who installed aluminum cable and not got the place cleaned due to which short circuit occurred. All other civil remedies were held in favour of the accused, as the Electrical Inspector who had inspected the property has held that there was no fault of any of the persons and it was due to short circuit that has happened and the unit owners of Unit Nos. 111 to 113 had not taken proper care of aluminum cables. With these findings and notwithstanding the same, the Police had filed a charge sheet and proceedings were registered as S.C.No.1164 of 2010. He would, therefore, on parity along with other reasons, seek quashment of the proceedings.

5. Per-contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would seek to refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is accused No.1. All other accused had no role of play. Though the petitioner has literally no role to play, the proceedings against him need not be quashed. He would submit that it is a matter of trial in which the petitioner should come out clean and seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. Following earlier order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in T.G.MANDANNA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA – Criminal Petition No.769 of 2011, I had allowed Criminal Petition No.4726 of 2012 decided on 21-10-2021 in the case of SANJAY GOEL V. STATE OF KARNATAKA filed by accused No.18 in the very crime with the following reasoning:

“…. …. …. 7. The petitioner is accused No.18 in S.C.No.1164 of 2010 pending before the Presiding Officer,