PRAYER:

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in S.T.C.No.18 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai and quash the same by allowing this Criminal Original Petition.

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.18 of 2022, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai, thereby taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 336 & 338 of IPC, as against the petitioner.

The case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2021 at about 7.00 am., the petitioner came to the defacto complainant’s house and asked his son to come to his cattle farm to carry out miscellaneous electrical works. Accordingly, the defacto complainant’s son went to the petitioner’s farm shed and during the said work, he accidently came in contact with high tension live electric wire and severely injured due to electrocution. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint and on receipt of the same, the first respondent registered a FIR in Crime No.313 of 2021 as against the petitioner. After completion of investigation, they filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.T.C.No.18 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 336 & 338 of IPC, as against the petitioner. To quash the said proceedings the petitioner filed the present petition.

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.313 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 336 & 338 of IPC, as against the petitioner and the same has been taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.18 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai. Hence he prayed to quash the same.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the first respondent police would submit that the trial has been commenced and some of the witnesses have been examined in this case. Hence he prayed to dismiss the present petition.

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

On perusal of the records and also on the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is revealed that the petitioner is the sole accused. Further, the accident itself was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the victim. There is no negligence on the part of the petitioner, in order to attract the offences under Sections 336 & 338 of IPC, to be performed by an individual with rash and negligent manner. There is no such act done by the petitioner and he was not at all present in the place of the accident. It was happened only due to the negligence on the part of the victim. Further, the injury should have been the direct result of a rash and negligence act of the accused to attract the offences under Sections 336 & 338 of IPC. The degree of negligence has to be higher on the part of the accused. There must at least be recklessness or total disregard for the possible consequences. Simple lack of case, though it is bad the consequences are, will not constitute criminal negligence.

Further, there is no piece of evidence to show that the petitioner engaged the victim to carryout the electrical works in his farm shed. Further, there is no evidence to show that there was an employee and employer relationship between the petitioner and the victim. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the victim touched the live electric wire which was passing 7 feet height above the shed and got injured due to electrocution. In fact, the doctor opined that the injuries sustained by him are not grievous one. That apart, the alleged occurrence took place on 17.06.2021. But the complaint was lodged only on 12.08.2021 viz., after the lapse of 57 days from the date of occurrence