COMMON ORDER

These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who were arrayed as A1 and A2 in P.R.C.No.71 of 2016 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, seeking to call for the records pertaining to the said case and quash the same as against the petitioners herein.

2. The Inspector of Police, R-7, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Chennai, 1st respondent herein, based on a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, namely, Thiru Manohar and after investigation, has laid a charge sheet against the petitioners herein and other accused, alleging that the defacto complainant's son, namely, Master Ranjan, aged about 9 years, studying IV standard in F Section in Padma Seshadri Bala Bhavan Senior Secondary School, Chennai, went to the school as usual on 16.08.2012 at about 09.30 a.m. While so, the defacto complainant's wife received a phone call from a Cell Phone, informing that her son while undergoing the swimming class, had a sudden cough, due to which, he drank the water and drowned and later, he was immediately taken to the hospital. After receipt of the telephonic information, the defacto complainant and his wife went to Vijaya Health Centre, where they were informed that their son had expired. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint against the accused alleging that they are responsible for the cause of the death of his son. 3. Though initially, an FIR was registered against the accused including the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC, later based on 161 Cr.P.C. Statements of the witnesses and Post-mortem certificate which opined that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to drowning, it was altered into offence under Section 304(ii) IPC.

4. The charge sheet laid by the 1st respondent, was taken on file vide PRC No.71 of 2016 by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and pending for committal to the Sessions Court. At this stage, the petitioners have come forward with the present petitions, seeking to quash the proceedings as against them.

5. Mr. A.Ramesh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that it is a very unfortunate case where a 9 year old boy drowned in a swimming pool while undergoing swimming class in the school, where the petitioner (A1), was acting as Deputy Dean, Director and Correspondent of the School and the petitioner (A6) was working as Physical Education Teacher. While swimming, the boy drank the water due to cough and became breathless and immediately, after noticing him, his Coach (A3) and Life Guard (A5) took the boy to a nearby hospital where, after giving first aid, they were advised to take him to a better hospital and when the boy was taken to Vijaya Hospital, he was declared as 'brought him dead'. He would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they were not even present at the scene of occurrence and absolutely no prima facie material was available against the petitioners to connect them with the offence.

6. As far as the petitioner (A1) is concerned, the learned Senior counsel would submit that she is the Deputy Dean and Correspondent of the School and she entered into an agreement with M/s.Aquatic Sports Association for imparting and training students in swimming classes and also to maintain swimming pool. The Proprietor of M/s.Aquatic Sports Association, who was arrayed as A2, was possessing Ph.D from Madras University (Swimming, Yoga, Gymnasium, Jaccuzi and Steam) and having more than 25 years of experience in the field of imparting and training swimming classes. He also served as Part-time Lecturer for six years in YMCA college and as Principal of Gnanamani College of Physical Education, Namakkal and further, he had international experience since he worked as Senior Lecturer in the University of Zambia, Central Africa and considering his vast experience and expertise in the field, the petitioner A1 had entered into