Criminal culpability for culpable homicide requires proof of direct involvement, intention, or knowledge of the specific act, and cannot be vicariously attributed to a site engineer without evidence of participation in the negligent activity or causation of the fatal act.

for R1 Order This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.14 of 2003 on the file of the 1^st respondent police registered for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 304(i) of IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that while the daughter of the 2^nd respondent was proceeding on 17.03.2003 from the Metro Railway Station to her office through the subway at Thousand Lights, the accused had allegedly demolished an old structure by using a 140 LR Poclain machine without adopting any safety measures or issuing any prior caution to the public. Due to the said demolition work, the debris from the demolished structure allegedly fell on the daughter of the 2^nd respondent and caused grievous injuries to her. As a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Based on the complaint lodged by the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent police registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Section 304A IPC. 3. The subject property belongs to the 1^st accused, who had decided to demolish the old structure and put up a new construction. In this regard, the 1^st accused had entered into an agreement with the concerned contractor for demolition of the old building. The petitioner, who has been arrayed as the 2^nd accused, was only working as a Site Engineer in connection with the proposed construction to be put up in the property belonging to the 1^st accused. The petitioner was neither the owner of the property nor the contractor entrusted with the demolition work. Further, the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time and had no direct role in the demolition activities. It is further submitted that, prior to commencement of the construction, the 1^st accused had entered into a contract with the concerned contractor to demolish the existing old structure in the subject property. While carrying out the demolition work, the persons entrusted with such work allegedly failed to follow the prescribed safety measures and precautions and proceeded with the demolition in a negligent manner. At that time, the deceased, while walking adjacent to the building under demolition, was hit by the falling debris and building materials, resulting in fatal injuries. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held liable, as he was neither the owner of the building nor the contractor entrusted with or supervising the demolition work.

4.In order to attract the offence under Section 304 IPC, there must be sufficient materials to establish culpability on the part of the accused, coupled with the requisite knowledge or intention that the act was likely to cause death or such bodily injury as was likely to result in death. However, in the present case, there are absolutely no materials available on record to show that the petitioner had either the intention or the knowledge necessary to constitute the offence under Section 304 IPC. There is absolutely no material available against the petitioner to make out an offence under Section 304 IPC. Further, the petitioner did not participate in the demolition activity and was appointed only as a Site Engineer for the purpose of putting up the proposed new construction. Moreover, the petitioner was not present at the scene of occurrence at the relevant point of time and had absolutely no knowledge regarding the demolition activities carried out by the concerned contractor. Therefore, none of the essential ingredients required to attract the offence under Section 304 IPC are made out against the petitioner.

5.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. The proceedings in Crime No.14 of 2003, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed. The 1^st respondent police is directed to complete the investi