THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL PETITION No.377 of 2024

O R D E R :

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.19911 of 2019 on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Nampally, registered for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.07.2019, the deceased namely Devendra, in an inebriated condition, accidentally fell down into the lift pit from the third floor of the residential building which is under construction, as a result of which he suffered grievous injuries leading to his death. The allegation against the petitioner-accused No.2 is that being the owner of the residential building under construction, he failed to exercise due supervision over the construction work and neglected to take necessary preventive measures to avert any untoward incidents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner is the owner of the residential building under construction in which the alleged incident had taken place, but not the petitioner herein. The father of the petitioner entered into a Development Agreement-cum- General Power of Attorney, dated 12.10.2018, with accused No.1 for development of his property. As per the said Development Agreement, the second party i.e., accused No.1, who is the Developer of S.V. Builders and Developers, is solely responsible if any accident or safety of the labour or the building is concerned and neither the petitioner nor his father, who is the owner of the residential building, is responsible. The entire property was handed over to accused No.1 for commencing work. The allegations made in the complaint do not attribute any specific role to the petitioner, except mentioning his name and the ingredients of offence under Section 304-A of IPC are not made out. Hence, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that all the allegations levelled in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are subject matter of trial, and hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having perused the registered sale deed bearing document No.1210 of 1977, dated 16.05.1977, it is evident that the father of the petitioner, namely J.Ramchandra Reddy, is the absolute owner of the residential building under construction. The said J.Ramchandra Reddy (first party) entered into a Development Agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney, dated 12.10.2018 with accused No.1 (second party) for developing the said property, wherein, there are clauses 5 and 7(g), which reads as follow:

5. The “second party” shall take total responsibility of the construction of the said Residential Building and the “first party” is in no way responsible or liable for construction of the said Residential Building or for any loss whether financial or otherwise as a result of the construction and development undertaken by the “second party”.

All such losses shall be borne by the “second party” only.

7(g). The “second party” shall be fully and wholly responsible for all the compensations or the demands for compensation to be paid for any accidents or injuries during or in the course of the construction and development of the said property to the labour/ labour’s to any third party.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is neither the owner nor a signatory to the said Development Agreement, nor was the petitioner involved in the supervision or execution of the construction work. The entire control and possession of the said premises had been handed over to accused No.1 in pursuance of t