HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4951 of 2​008 ORDER:- This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(for short Cr.P.C) to quash the proceedings in the C.C.No.281 of 2008 on the file of the Court of IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Guntur, as against the petitioner herein. 2. The petitioner is the first accused (A.1) in the above criminal case and there is one more accused and he is arrayed as second accused (A.2). The said C.C.No.280 of 2008 has been registered for an offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C i.e. causing death by doing a rash or negligent act. When this matter came up for admission, notice was ordered to the first respondent i.e. the State and also to the second respondent who is said to be the de facto complainant in the case. It is seen that notice has been served on the second respondent but she did not choose to appear. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the public prosecutor has argued the matter at the admission stage and the matter is taken up for disposal. 3. The petitioner is working as the Municipal Asst. Engineer and A.2-Jonnakuti Ananda Rao is said to be a contract current helper in Guntur Municipal Corporation. The allegations in the charge sheet made against both the petitioners are that sometime prior to 23-06-2007 the A.1 got fitted two electric street lights to two electrical poles unauthorizedly with sub-standard electrical wires and that A.2 was entrusted with the job of switching on the said lights after the setting of the darkness and switching off them in the early hours of the next day. It is alleged that because of the sub-standard wires and the unauthorised installation of the above street lights, an electrical accident occurred on the morning of 23- 06-2007 at 08.35 a.m and the said wires snapped and fell on the deceased-Priyanka Jain who came to that spot on a two wheeler to drop her brother at a school called Children’s Public school situated in a area called Sangadigunta of Guntur town and that in that accident the deceased suffered several electrical burns and died of electrocution. It is stated in the charge sheet that the above electrical street lights were fitted to the poles at a point which is nearer to the above school. It is further stated in the charge sheet that on the report given by the Principal of the Childrens Public School initially the case in Cr.No.173 of 2007 under Section 174 Cr.P.C was registered in Lalapet Law and Order P.S., Guntur and subsequently investigation was taken up by the Sub-Inspector of the said police station. 4. It is also alleged in the charge sheet that one N.Yadagiri Rao, the then Deputy Commissioner of Guntur Municipal Corporation conducted an enquiry into the matter and his report also revealed that A.1 and A.2 were responsible for the death of the deceased due to electrocution. The charge sheet copy filed discloses that the investigating officer examined twenty one witnesses and came to the conclusion that A.1 and A.2 were responsible for the above death of the deceased and that it occurred due to a rash act or a negligent act on the part of A.1 and A.2 and that therefore both of them have been charge sheeted in the above Court for the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C. 5. Sri Nagireddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the charge sheet allegations and also the list of witnesses cited and argued that the petitioner got the electric lights in question fitted on the instructions of one Shaik Abdul Hafeez a Deputy Engineer of the Municipal Corporation and certain other persons who approached the latter and therefore he cannot be prosecuted for the offence and in-fact there is nothing on record to show that he has committed the offence in question and therefore the criminal case in question against him should be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the charge sheet itself shows that the investigating officer has examined twenty one witnesses and all aspects of the case and laid charge sheet against this petitioner and the other accused in the case. He also argued that the allegations in the charge sheet as such do disclose an offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C against this petitioner and consequently the criminal Court before which the case is pending should be allowed to take up the said case for trail and decide the questions raised by the petitioner. His further argument is that since the case involves disputed questions of fact and the pleas raised by the petitioner constitute his defence in the matter, this is not a fit case for interfering under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. A perusal of the charge sheet itself would show that the above contention of the Public Prosecutor is not without force. It is true that the petitioner is stated to be an Asst. Engineer of the Guntur Municipal Corporation. Regarding the role of Shaik Abdul Hazfeez, Deputy Engineer of the Corporation, the charge sheet no- doubt shows that he endorsed the request of some persons of the locality in question to the petitioner for fitting the electrical lights in question. It may be noted that the petitioner is not charge sheeted for fitting up unauthorised street lights, but the main allegation against him is that he has installed the street lights in question with defective or sub-standard electrical wire and that resulted in the snapping of the wires causing the death of the deceased by electrocution. It is alleged in that context that the petitioner has installed the electrical street lights unauthorizedly. Thus the actual cause of the incident is stated to be user of sub-standard electrical wires as against the petitioner and the operation of the lights i.e. switching them on and off by the A.2 in a negligent manner. 8. The various pleas advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner would show that they all constitute his defence in the trial and the said pleas can be examined only in the trial. Hence it follows that no opinion can be expressed on the same in this petition. 9. To sum up, it can be said that this is not a case where the allegations in the charge sheet even if believed to be true do not disclose an offence. Hence having regard to the limitations placed on the power of this Court to interfere in matters like this under Section 482 Cr.P.C, I am of the opinion that this petition cannot be entertained. 10. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, it follows that this criminal petition must fail and the same is accordingly dismissed. 11. Parting with the matter, it is seen that in the charge sheet it is alleged that the petitioner along with A.2 has committed the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C which is a bailable one. Hence the petitioner can move the trial Court for bail if he has not already obtained bail. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J 1st April 2011 VJL