- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4365 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA, S/O. SRI. RAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.#26-34/4, MR MANSION, 3RD MAIN, OPP. KALAGRAMA, KENGERI RING ROAD, JNANAJYOTHI NAGAR, MALLATHAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 056 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHIJEET, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY DABASPET POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.41/2020, COMPLAINT DATED 06.03.2020 AND CHARGE SHEET NO.52/2020 PENDING IN C.C.NO.4129/2021 (AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2) (I.E., ANNEXURE-A, B AND C RESPECTIVELY) ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL, REGISTERED BY THE Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2022 RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 287, 304A OF IPC. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.2 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.41/2020 of Dobbaspet police station, pending in C.C.No.4129/2021 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural for the offence punishable under Sections 287 and 304A of Indian Penal Code ( for short 'IPC'). 2. The statement of the injured Y.M.Vasanthkumar was recorded while he was taking treatment in St. John's Hospital after sustaining burn injuries. The injured has stated that, he was working as a labourer under the contractor and as per the oral direction of his higher officer Mr.Prakash, Assistant Engineer, climbed the electric pole and attended to his work. Suddenly, due to electrocution, he sustained injuries all over his body. He claimed that no safety equipment like rubber hand - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2022 gloves, shoes and helmet were provided to him to work in such a dangerous situation and therefore, requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the FIR came to be registered and investigation was undertaken. The charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 287 and 304A of IPC, as the injured died during investigation. The petitioner being accused No.2 named in the charge sheet is before this Court, seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. 3. Heard Sri Abhijeet, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. Perused the materials on records. 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2022 R E A S O N S 5. The FIR came to be registered as per the statement of injured, while he was taking treatment in the hospital. When the injured was working in a dangerous situation, attending to live electric wires, he sustained burn injuries and during investigation he died. Now it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner is neither the Director of M/s.Keonics nor he is responsible for the mishap. Except saying that the petitioner is not the Director of the M/s.Keonics, the petitioner has not produced any material before this Court. Even according to the learned counsel, the petitioner is the sub-contractor empanelled with M/s.Keonics and was supplying the manpower to work with BESCOM through M/s.Keonics. The allegation is that, even though the manpower was supplied and the deceased was working with BESCOM through the contractor, he was not provided with safety gears i.e., rubber gloves, shoes or helmet, which has resulted in the accident and subsequent death of the deceased. When prima facie materials are available and the life of a labourer is lost in the unfortunate incident, it is premature to form an opinion that the petitioner is not responsible for not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2022 providing safety gears for the worker. The petitioner is at liberty to take necessary defence before the Trial Court, but he is not entitled for quashing the criminal proceedings at this stage. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, he is not named in the first information, cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings, as while filing the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has specifically named him as accused No.2. The other contention that the negligence was on the part of the operator at the station is the reason for electrocution, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner also cannot be accepted at this stage. Moreover, the other contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, even according to the deceased, he attended to dangerous work at the instructions of Mr.Prakash, Assistant Engineer, and therefore, it is only Mr.Prakash, who is responsible for the death of the deceased, cannot be accepted at this stage. A full fledged trial is to be held by the Trial Court to find out the truth and to fix the liability, if any. In view of the specific allegations, regarding non providing of safety measures like rubber hand gloves, shoes and helmet for the operators - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1253 CRL.P No. 4365 of 2022 working under such dangerous situation, I do not find any reason to quash the criminal proceedings at this stage. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29