BETWEEN: 3 %
1.
CIRCUIT BENCH Dmwgp .1: '--
DATED THIS THE 2431* $AY ()15.' £).{3'I'():B EE?'A. %'
BE§égE
THE HON'BLE MOHAN REDDY
CRIMINAL 2008
TULASf§?--P}5s- %
S/O 3;£i.M.23PPA.%'KAL.%mé.G1
A'G'E'.D_ AjBOU'i§" 44 -YEARS" V *
ICJN QVFFIVCER; - _I__1AI{AL
HUBLI 'ELEC'EfRiQI'FY SUPPLY co LTD.,
11,A.;{AL,BAGALx%o1§»DisTR1Cr. PETITIONER.
.» {By si-i. C; JA.KA, 'fiDV. FOR
$32. 'S K WNKATA REDDY, ADV.)
.. - 'x'§p*'.KARNATA1<4a
BY POLICE
Ii.-AKAL, HUNUGUND TALUK
":3g3,GALKcT DIS'FRiC'I'
H RAMANNA
X S/0 NAGAPPA GOTHURA
MAJOR
R/O ALLAMPURA PETA
ILAKAL, HUNGUND 'mw:«:
BAGALKUF DIST.
(By Sri. ANAND K. NAVALGIMATH, HCGP FOR E1)
RESPONDENT.
‘mm <::RL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAffi–N(§
ASIDE THE ORDER D'I'.20.2.(}8 PASSED l,3Y"ITHE._"JMFC.",._V
HUNGUND IN C..C.NO.63/08 _F.0R THE""I}FF'E,NACES
P/Y/s.337 85 304-A op IPC. CONSEQUEN'I'LY'i31S»CHARGE
THE PETR. FOR THE CHARGES i;.Ev53LI;E.;:5».AGAINs%:~~..g§:ITM
IN THE CHARGE SHEET.
THIS PETFTION COMINGQGN Fc§re« AUMIsé’i,<jfi, 'THES V'
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
The '%ofiSg,~er,_ Elecuic Supply
Company 3 punishable under
mtiog :3�'_' C.C.No.63/ 2008 on the
file of has presented this petition
invoking S§i£:ti;§n'.<{32 "of"}V11c Criminal Pmcaium Code to
11$ pmoeez 'difigévand the order dated 20~02~2008 of
'fizase of the prosecutison is that, one Ramanna,
: "th.e; iefipcmdent herein, lodged a compkaint on 6-942006
atv'a'.c:5ut 5.00 pm. all:-zgng that his son by name Raghu,
% 8 years and another boy by name Apxida, awd 6 years,
Went to swim / take bath £n Himhailada bridge near Sri.
Vijayamahantcsh Swaxziiji Gadduge, whence the eIcctric_ pole
i
33
ii)
with a guy wire drawn to support it, had c1cctqfié::it’jf’:’1§éi§5sTiiig:.’
through it and Raghu having 00111:; .i2£k,..’3°I1t9azbf ” ” 2
wire, was clectmcutcd and died, dfic iof
petitioner. The complaint *
ofience, the 1″ mspongicnt — same as
Crime No.13!)/2006 stafiemcnts of
Murthujasab, Sfo. W/o.
Rammappa VV 0. Chanbasappa,
secured tn; véigiéh opined the cause of
death vascular shack I
cardio “to electrical cuxrcnt, examined
and .1:1Aa.5:wV?.s’tat.£*:rxié;1ts of other witnesses and filed a
. V. <;:héur€g.e4.$heét on '9'¥'i'–QV'3008, whence the JMFC, Hungund
as C.C.No.63/2008, took cognizance and
jlof summons to the petitioner.
V» * 4_ The petition is not opposed by filing Statement of
dficjétions of the respondent. Leazrncd counsel for the
” piaccs mliance upon the decision of a harmed
Single Judge of this Court in the case: of B3.
CHAIIIJRASHEKAR AND OTHERS 173». STATE 0!’
KARKATAKA, av PEEHYA POLICE’ to coI1tcI;(1..’4″i§i:zi’e”VA3:Vt:ieV.
requizement of Section 304«A IPC is that the
person must have been caused
or negligent act, in that, there must
negligent act of the aceueed the of
death. Accouiing to {hem meet be a
direct nexus between and the rash
and negligent gc::o£%mc;&¢u§ca:: ai1d__the cution having
failed to gaxaiei’ L”estaE$liAi§_i:1 adirect nexus between
the neeiigent act of the petitioner ..
accuseci,>1u1e– 9 responsible for the death
of the.youn;§ _
‘A Perjéeanua, learned SP1’ seeks to sustain the taking
by the JMFC as complaint disclosed the
of an offence punishable in law, by the
. peti1_§ioner: Learned counsel hastens to add that the facts in
–{;3handrashekar’s case are totally difiezent frnm those of
% case and therefore, the legal principle Laid down therein
VV has no application to the facts of this case,
I vi
3′ \
‘:13. 200? KAR 309
S. Having heard the icamed counsel for
perused the pleadings, examined the material
there can be no dispute that the comphint _
facie the commission of an
Indian Penal Code, by the petitioncv1″.V.. A isay
fact that electricity was passirig’t«tt:f1mugh’t1;t:’gr}5z V’
to hold the electric the bridge
where the children the Water,
apparently not.i:i.;disp1ite, the death of the
boy, statement of Witnesses too,
support Ltgdsaid ” ‘ « “‘
_; 6. The E’§’.EwChandrashr:kar’s case wen: that a
11g’ ht under the tug’ 1:1 tcnsion line,
issued a disclaimer saying that any loss
ems o3f’p:*ti;)£§1ty in relation to the high tension line in and
they would not be responsible. The
A tyoztxzfg fife that was cxt1n’ guishcd, having some in Contact
yzith the high tension wine while retrieving a ban which had
fallnn on a roof, led to the conclusion that no negfigence can
be attributed to the petitioner therein. The facts ’31 this case
J
‘., aw,/’
are obviously not either identical or similar so .
very same conclusion. as hasWbcen.”‘tio1ifiv, i:1
Chandrashekafs case. In ognsifiéizfiil-A.’
judgment has no appiication £0 -the f.’aii”:t:_.~3 <2.f this:
7. The petitioner has not-‘m:é§s’tm_t a Vjestablish
that the continuance of lead to abuse
of process of Iagfsao ‘ifitfllfiifiéficc. Petition is
rejected. ‘ »
Sal/«A
Iudgé