THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.5394 OF 2007 ORDER: This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of further proceedings in pursuance of F.I.R.No.81 of 2007 on the file of the Madgul police station, Mahaboobnagar District. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the 1st respondent-State. None appeared for the 2nd respondent. Perused the record. 3. On a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, police registered a case in Cr.No.21 of 2007 against the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. It is alleged by the 2nd respondent in her complaint that on 21- 07-2007 at about 7.30 p.m. her son-Jampula Anthaiah went to the fields for attending calls of nature and did not return home and on the next day i.e. on 22-07-2008, his body was found in a trench which was dug for laying Reliance cables in the outskirts of the village. Petitioner is stated to be a Contractor, who has taken the work of laying the cables on contract from the Reliance company. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the ingredients of the offence under Section 304-A IPC are not at all attracted to the facts in the present case. He would submit that the work of laying the cables was still in progress by the date of the incident and that the deceased himself was negligent, which resulted in his falling in the trench and the petitioner can no way be held even remotely or directly liable for the accident. He relied upon a decision reported in KURBAN HUSSEIN MOHAMEDALLI BANGAWALLA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [1], wherein reference was made to EMPEROR v. OMKAR RAMPRATAP[2] in which it was held as follows: “We may in this connection refer to Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap (1) where Sir Lawrence Jenkins had to interpret s. 304-A and observed as follows-- "To impose criminal liability under s.304-A, Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the death should have been the direct result of a rash and negligent act of the accused, and that act must be the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. It must be the cause causans; it is not enough that it may have been the cause sine qua non." This view has been generally followed by High Courts in India and is in our opinion the right view to take of the meaning of s. 304-A. It is not necessary to refer to other decisions, for as we have already said this view has been generally accepted. Therefore the mere fact that the fire would not have taken place if the appellant had not allowed burners to be put in the same room in which turpentine and varnish were stored, would not be enough to make him liable under s. 304- A, for the fire would not have taken place, with the result that seven persons were burnt to death, without the negligence of Hatim. The death in this case was therefore in our opinion not directly the result of a rash or negligent act on the part of the appellant and was not the proximate and efficient cause without the intervention of another's negligence. The appellant must therefore be acquitted of the offence under s. 304- A IPC”. 5. In the present case also, it cannot be said that the death of the deceased was a direct result of digging of trench by the petitioner in the course of laying the cables. It cannot be said that the trench was left open on account of the negligence on the part of the petitioner-accused. The work of laying cable was still in progress. The death of the deceased due to fall in the trench, though unfortunate, cannot be attributed to any rash or negligent act or omission on the part of the petitioner. In other words, the death of the deceased has no proximity and connection with the digging of the trench by the petitioner. The death of the deceased cannot therefore be considered to be result of rash or negligent act of the petitioner-accused. The ingredients of the offence under Section 304-A IPC are not attracted to the facts of the case. The further investigation into the said complaint would only be an exercise of futility. It is therefore considered that it is a fit case, where further proceedings in pursuance of the First Information Report in Cr.No.81 of 2007 of Madgul police station, can be quashed, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the result, Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in pursuance of the First Information Report No.81 of 2007 of Madgul police station, Nalgonda District, are hereby quashed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 08th July, 2010 Tsy [1] AIR 1965 SUPREME COURT 1616 [2] (02) 4 BOMBAY LR 679