JUDGMENT 1. - In Criminal case No. 704/87 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Lower Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Hindaun-City, the petitioner and two other accused are facing trial and the case is still in the initial stage as only cognizance under Section 304-A and 285 IPC has been taken. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.PC, seeking for quashing the proceedings. 2. In order to appreciate the real controversy in the matter, some necessary facts may be stated, which are not much in dispute. One Surendra Singh son of Udai Bhan Singh died due to electrocution on June 15, 1986. Udaibhan Singh made a report of this fact to the S.H.O., Police Station, Hindaun. On this report, an inquiry under Section 174 Cr.PC commenced. Inquest report of the dead body was prepared and Site-Plan of the place of incident was also prepared in the morning of 16.6.86. Statements of the witnesses were recorded by the A.S.I. The site-plan and statements of the witnesses reveal that 11 KV electric line passes through the field of one Dlgambar Singh son of Parsadi Jat. The electric wires of the said line fell down on earth for any reason, which might be due to earth fault or sitting of some bird on the line. Surendra Singh died by touch with the alive electric wires lying on the ground. In the said inquiry, at the initial stage, one of the witnesses made any allegation in his statement that death of Surendra Singh was due to direct result of any rash or negligence on the part of the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, on 19.6.86, one Doongar Singh made a written complaint to the S.H.O. and Crime No. 250/86 was registered under Section 304-A and 285 IPC at the Police Station, Hindaun-City on June 22,1986. After registration of the case, the police further recorded statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC. The statement of Doongar Singh was recorded by the police on 2.7.86 and he simply stated that he had earlier made an oral complaint to the Assistant Engineer that electric wire were loose. Some other witnesses also made similar statements that complaint was made to the Assistant Engineer for loose electric wires. The Investigating Agency also obtained-reports from RSEB Office of Asst. Engineer and Junior Engineer. Some other witnesses also made similar statements that complaint was made to the Assistant Engineer for loose electric wires. The Investigating Agency also obtained-reports from RSEB Office of Asst. Engineer and Junior Engineer. From the statements of the witnesses and reports obtained from office of RSEB at Hindaun-City, it transpired that co-accused Ram Dayal was directly incharge to look-after the electric line. Ram Dayal is a co-accused in the case. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no iota of evidence on the record that death of Surendra Singh was as a result of rash or culpable negligent act of the petitioner. Learned counsel contended that for criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC death should be a direct result of rash and negligent act of the accused and it should be the proximate and direct cause without the intervention of another's negligence. In other words, learned counsel contended that it must be the cause causans. Reliance is placed on the decisions in State of Bombay v. Chinubhai Haridas Seth (1959) Bombay L.R. 1753 ; Mohd. Bangawalla v. Maharashtra State ( AIR 1965 SC 1616 ) ; A.D. Chatta v. The State of Gujarat ( AIR 1972 SC 1150 ) In AD. Chatta v. State of Gujarat (supra) it was held as under"- "In a prosecution for an offence under section 304-A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act which cause death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of a rash or negligencient cause of the death. The act causing the deaths must be the cause causans; it is not enough that it may have been the causa sine qua non. Thus, met non-compliance with the provisions of the Drugs Rules as made under the Drugs Act by a Chemist of a chemical Company for giving a batch number of every lot of bottles containing preparations of glucose in normal saline did not by itself make the act of chemist cause causans of the death of persons who were injected with those preparations when it was not only the duty of the Chief Analyst to test the materials before they were Issued to the Injection department but also the test lead nitrate in the solution which resulted in the death of the persons. Hence, the negligence of the chemist in giving one batch number to several lots could not by itself by said to be the direct cause of the death nor could his act be declared to be grossly rash and negligent," 5. In the back-ground of the aforesaid legal and factual aspects, the question is whether there is any ground for prosecution of the petitioner under Sections 304-A IPC and 285 IPC. 6. It is true that petitioner was Asstt. Engineer of the area at the relevant time but simply being the senior most officer-liability under Section 304-A IPC cannot be fastened on him. Alive electric wires had fallen on ground on the day when the incident took place and there is no evidence on record that any complaint was made to the petitioner about falling of electric wires on the ground or that their was in-action on his part even after receipt of such complaint. Even the statements of the witnesses, recorded at late stage of the investigation, are taken on their face value, the only allegation against the petitioner is that some oral complaints were made to him about a month earlier or so from the date of incident to the effect that electric wires on the poles were loose. The statements of the witnesses, taken no face value, are not sufficient to fasten criminal liability, though there may be civil liability of the Department and the concerned officers, who were responsible to maintain the electric lines in order. 7. After going through the entire evidence on record, the evidence collected by the investigating agency at the most show in-action on the part of the petitioner on oral complaints made by some villagers about loose electric wires on the poles and he may be said to be responsible for supervisory lapses and nothing more. 8. Thus, by accepting the prosecution case on its face, it cannot be said that death of Surendra Singh was a direct result of negligence or rashness on the part of the petitioner. Surendra Singh died by the touch of alive electric wires which had fallen on ground on the day of incident. In absence of evidence that timely information about the above fact was given to the petitioner and he did not act reasonably and deliberately, there cannot be any scope to argue that his negligence was of culpable nature. 9. Surendra Singh died by the touch of alive electric wires which had fallen on ground on the day of incident. In absence of evidence that timely information about the above fact was given to the petitioner and he did not act reasonably and deliberately, there cannot be any scope to argue that his negligence was of culpable nature. 9. Hence, no useful purpose shall be served if pending criminal prosecution of the petitioner is allowed to continue. While going through record of the trial Court I found that the case of co-accused Pradeep Kumar is similar to that of petitioner. He was Junior Engineer of the area at the relevant time, against whom also there is no iota of evidence to make him criminally liable. His case being at par, he deserves to be given the same treatment even though he has not approached. The Court can suo-moto quash proceedings against him.In the result, I allow this petition. The order taking cognizance against the petitioner Damodar Sharma co-accused Pradeep Kumar is set aside and pending criminal proceedings against them, is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******