criapln4241.23.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4241 OF 2023 1. Natha Haribhau Jadhav 2. Dnyaneshwar Uttamrao Hiwale VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Balu Karbhari Thete Mr. J. V. Deshpande and Mr. S. N. Dudhate, Advocate for Applicants Mr. S. P. Joshi, APP for Respondent-State Mr. R. V. Gore, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 CORAM : R.M. JOSHI, J DATE : 21 August, 2026 P. C. : 1. By this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicants seek quashment of the proceedings pending before the Additional Sessions Judge at Aurangabad bearing Sessions Case No. 182/2023 arising out of Crime No. 136/2022 registered at Kannad Police Station (Rural), District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Section 304 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecution, the First Information Report was lodged by Respondent no. 2/informant, Balu Karbhari Thete, R/o Navadi Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. The informant alleged that four labourers, namely, Ganesh Narayan Thete, Jagdish Chhaganrao Murkunde, Bharat Babasaheb Barkad and Arjun Balkrishna Magar succumbed to fatal electric 2026:BHC-AUG:38645-DB criapln4241.23.odt shocks while working in an agricultural field at Gut No. 52, Hivarkheda Nandgirwadi Shivar. The alleged incident occurred when co-accused Maksoodkhan Maankhan Pathan illegally set up a electrified thin iron wire fence surrounding his papaya crop by drawing an exposed live wire from the electric transformer (DP) passing through Gut No.51 belonging to the landowner Banobi Latif Pathan, in order to ward off wild animals. The prosecution attributes the fatal electrocution of the four deceased to gross negligence, alleging shared criminal culpability to the landowner for erecting an illegal live-wire fence, along with the project contractor of Anukul Power Engineers Private Limited, its supervisor, and the departmental MSEDCL staff i.e. the present applicants, who were serving as Sub-Engineer and Wireman respectively with MSEDCL at Chikhalthan Taluka Kannad Dist. Aurangabad. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that Applicant no. 1 was working as Sub- Engineer and Applicant no. 2 was a wireman in MSEDCL at Chikalthan, Tq. Kannad Dist. Aurangabad at the relevant time and have been falsely and arbitrarily implicated in the said crime. It contends that the investigation report dated 12.7.2022 submitted by the Electrical Inspector demonstrates that the fatal electrocution occurred entirely due to an illegal unauthorized live iron-wire fence privately erected by co-accused landowner, Maksoodkhan Maankhan Pathan to safeguard his criapln4241.23.odt papaya crop. The present applicants had neither any knowledge of nor physical control over this illicit, private setup. It is further submitted that the High Voltage Distribution System (HVDS) project work legally outsourced by MSEDCL to an independent contractor, Anukul Power Engineers Private Limited under the strict safety protocols and guidelines were issued to ensure that no electrical current was supplied to the line during execution hours, where employees of the contractor were engaged in installing the new transformer (DP). Thus, according to him no capability could be attached to the applicants for unfortunate death of labours. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that there was neither mens rea nor actus reus attributable to the applicants. Furthermore, this court vide its order dated 15.9.2023 passed in Criminal Application No. 1063/2023, has already quashed the FIR against the co-accused Mukund Bhaskarrao Sobane. He further submitted that applying settled principles of parity, natural justice and relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v/s Bhajanlal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. The present applicants cannot be held liable as they are staff of the MSEDCL with no direct connection to the illegal fencing. Learned counsel for applicants, therefore, prayed for the quashing of the proceedings pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Aurangabad. Page 3 of 5 criapln4241.23.odt 5. Per contra, learned APP and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 vehemently opposed the application and grant of any relief to the present applicants. It is submitted that four persons have lost their lives due to the lack of necessary safety measures. They contend that while the Electrical Inspector's report reveals that co-accused Maksoodkhan Maankhan Pathan illegally drawn current from MSEDCL lines to energize an iron fence, the present applicants (Sub-Engineer and Wireman) cannot be absolved of responsibility. It is submitted that the MSEDCL staff failed in their duties to enforce line safety, execute proper shutdowns, and ensure mandatory earthing protocols before permitting work on high-voltage lines. It is contended that these operational lapses and alleged negligence are matters to be determined at the stage of trial. To support these submissions, he drew attention of the Court to the statements recorded by employees of Electricity Company that appropritate sanctions or permissions were not obtained to carry out work nor it was intimated in advance. 6. Perusal of the documents placed on record especially Electrical Inspector's report, clearly establish that the prima facie cause of the fatal electrocution was the illegal live-wire fence privately erected by the co- accused landowner Maksoodkhan Maankhan Pathan, an unauthorized setup over which the applicants had no control or knowledge. Most importantly, there is no case sought to be made out by the prosecution that on account of criapln4241.23.odt the erection of the DP and non-discontinuation of existing supply, the electrification took place, rather, it is the explicit cause of the prosecution that electrification occurred solely on account of electric current flowing into the fence of the agricultural field of the co-accused. Consequently, evidence or statements regarding the non-obtainment of administrative permissions are of no consequence. If it was the case of the prosecution that the existing DP was to be repaired or replaced, question if disconnection would arise. In absence thereof, even if accepting allegations against applicants to be true, no case is made out. Furthermore, in the absence of any mens rea or actus reus and by applying the principle of parity as well as the settled position of law laid down in State of Haryana v/s Bhajanlal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 continuing the prosecution against the applicants would amount to an abuse of the judicial process. 7. Hence, application stands allowed in terms of prayer clause 'B'. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) Malani