1 2025:CGHC:6461-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 40 of 2021 Aneg Das Son Of Late Baldu Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o. Village Kumhi, Post- Piplakachhar, Police Station- Khairagarh, Tahsil- Khairagrh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station- Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. Through Its Junior Engineer, Khairagarh City, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Tojan Sahu Son of Vijay Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Kumhi, Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 05/02/2025 1. By this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of the charge sheet filed in Crime 2 No. 0314/2020 registered at Police Station, Khairagarh, for the offences under Sections 304A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that from the electricity connection which the petitioner had taken, the wire broke and fell in the water lying in the field because of which one person namely Yuvraj Sahu and one buffalo died because of electrocution. Because of the said incident, an FIR was lodged by the respondent No. 3 alleging that because of the negligence on the part of the petitioner, the incident happened which took lives of one person and cattle. 3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in this case alleging that he had taken unauthorised electricity connection from the transformer of the respondent No. 2-Distribution Company whereas the fact is that though he had taken temporary connection, but the same was granted by the respondent-Distribution Company after completing all the formalities. He had been paying the electricity bills regularly and it is not a case of obtaining unauthorised connection and as such, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the unfortunate accident that took lives of a person and cattle. There is no ingredient present so as to attract Section 304A of the IPC against the petitioner. Hence, the charge sheet and the consequential proceedings may be quashed. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No. submits that the investigation has been concluded and the charge sheet has also been filed before the competent Court and now it is for the Court concerned to proceed with the matter. 5. Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2- 3 Distribution Company submits that because of the negligence of the petitioner, the incident occurred. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 7. The present petition was filed on 07.0.2021 and thereafter, the matter was listed on three occasions but no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner and as such, the trial appears to have been proceeded. It is submitted by Mr. Jaiswal that the trial is at the stage of framing of charge against the petitioner. 8. The charge sheet filed by the police against the petitioner states that the petitioner is accused of Section 304A of the IPC. The said Section of the IPC states that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. In the present case, though the deceased and the cattle died of electrocution, but from the materials available on record, it does not seem that there was any negligence on the part of the petitioner as he had duly applied for the electricity connection for running the submersible water pump and he had been paying the bills also regularly. There is nothing in the charge sheet to suggest that there was any rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioner. The supply wire could have been broken because of various reasons. The respondent No. 2-Company in his communication dated 28.08.2020 to the Station House OfÏcer, Khairagarh, has stated that because of improper maintenance of the service wire by the petitioner, the incident occurred and neither the Company was informed regarding the same. It was equally the responsibility of respondent-Company to 4 periodically check the connections and condition of the electricity connections provided by the respondent No. 2-Company regarding which there is no mention in the charge sheet. 9. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that this Court should exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quash the entire charge sheet as well as the consequential criminal proceedings emanating therefrom. 10.It is ordered accordingly. 11.Consequently, the petition stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.02.06 14:41:18 +0530