JUDGMENT
Bakhshish Kaur, J.
1. Heard.
2. The petitioners were charged with the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC as per order dated May 15.5.1998 on the allegation that they were responsible for the death of Mange Pal as they were working on the same site. They were digging earth where the decreased was also working and buried beneath the earth.
3. By way of filing this Revision the petitioners have sought quashing of the FIR No. 111 dated 23.2.1996 registered at PS City Rohtak under Section 304-A IPC on the ground that no offence under Section 304-A IPC is made out against them as they were not negligent in the performance of their duties.
4. It is an admitted fact that at the first instance, the case was investigated by the police and the police came to the conclusion that no offence is made out and that the incident was purely accidental. This fact is admitted by the respondents in the written reply under para 2. The second inquiry was conducted on the statement of father of the deceased on February 24, 1996 and he had named the petitioners responsible for the death of his son. Interestingly, the same set of witnesses were again examined who were earlier disbelieved. After the conclusion of the second inquiry, the present case was registered.
5. From the facts brought on the record as well as the charge sheet, it is not made out as to whether the petitioners are in any way responsible for the death of the deceased. It is not the case of the prosecution that they were negligent in digging earth. Specific charge as framed by the trial Court is that they alongwith Mahipal-deceased, were removing used earth. In the meantime, a big portion of earth fell upon Mahipal, due to which he lost his life. Whether the act of negligence can be directly attributed to them ? The answer to the query is in negative because at the same time they all were busy in removing the earth and they were not standing there as mere spectators. Further allegation against them is that they had not taken the deceased immediately from the heap of earth nor they took him to the hospital as a consequence of which he succumbed. The negligence so attributed to the petitioners would not any way attract the provisions of Section 304-A IPC. As such the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner on the basis would be an abuse of process of law.
6. It is well-settled that the inherent jurisdiction of the Court can be exercised to quash proceedings in a proper case either to prevent the abuse of the process of court or to secure the ends of justice. The allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet framed by the trial Court, even if they are taken on face value, do not constitute the alleged offence. I am of the view of that it is a case where extra- ordinary situation exists and, therefore, the inherent power has to be invoked.
7. In the facts and circumstances as above, the petition is accepted. It is ordered that the First Information Report No. 111 dated February 23, 1996 registered at P.S. City Rohtak under Section 304-A IPC against the petitioners is hereby quashed and the proceedings emanating therefrom against them be dropped.