1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2239/2009. 1) Murlidhar s/o Dagdu Sonawane and another. - APPLICANTS VERSUS 1) State of Maharashtra & Anr. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.D.K.Kulkarni, Advocate for Applicants; Mr.SG Nandedkar, APP for State. None for Respondent No.2 though served. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 9th September, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP for State extensively. Respondent No.2 though served, none appears for him. 2) The applicants, officers of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, have urged to quash the proceedings as against them for an offence under section 304-A of IPC, registered vide Crime No. I-93/2009 with Begumpura, Aurangabad police station. 3) On 8.6.2009, around 9.00 p.m. Aniket, a two-years old boy was playing in front of his father's shop. There were electrical poles 2 installed by the Municipal Corporation, through its contractor. There was live electricity supply in those poles and the unfortunate Aniket, having come in contact with the said electrical poles, suffered due to electrocution and succumbed. The brunt was even faced by the complainant, the father and others, who also arrived to verify. The nearby electrician was called, he also applied the electric tester and found that the electricity was existing. The position at the electric poles indicated total slackness on the part of the officers, as no care to shut or close the fuse box or the wires ends, was taken. There was no proper insulation also. 4) The contention by the Counsel that the officers have no role, directly or indirectly, at this stage, is difficult to digest. The officers, being responsible to supervise and manage the affairs, and Incharge, were equally expected to be diligent to the duty to avoid such events, which has taken precious life of budding boy. 5) The Counsel has placed reliance to the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla Vs. State of Maharashtra. (A.I.R. 1965 SC 1616). The conviction recorded in terms of Section 304-A of IPC was set aside. However, the conviction in terms of infraction of Section 285 of IPC was maintained on the said judgment. 3 6) The fact remains the applicants herein, whether provenly, knowingly or negligently omitted to take such steps, as was required to be taken, is a matter of investigation. The prima facie recitals in the F.I.R. cannot be said to be abuse of process or flowing from any absurdity, requiring interference by this Court in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be sparingly exercised only in the cases in which it is manifestly demonstrated, of illegality at the threshold. The law is more than clear in the matter of R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1960 SC 866); in the matter of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. ( AIR 1992 SC 604) as also and in the matter of G.Sagir Suri Vs. State of U.P. (2000) 2 SCC 636. 7) Consequently, I do not find any merit in the Criminal application, it is rejected. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/cran2239.09