ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 272 of 2005 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yelburga. 2. A complaint has been filed before the respondent-police alleging the criminal negligence against the Principal and also against the Secretary of Vidyananda Gurukula Trust alleging that on 6-9-2005 around 12.00 noon, Ramappa, a boy aged about 12 years was electrocuted and died on the spot due to the burning of the submersible motor of the borewell and grounding of the G.I. Pipe in the land belonging to the said Trust and later they were charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC. 3. Heard the Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 4. It is submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is no negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioners as the cause of death was due to short-circuit as per the report of Assistant Executive Engineer since the submersible motor of the borewell was burnt and due to the grounding of G.I. Pipe the electrical shock has occurred. Accordingly, in support of his argument, he relied upon the ruling in the case of Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v State of Maharashtra1, to contend that the death must be the direct result of rash or negligent act of accused and not otherwise. He also relied upon one more ruling in the case of Cherub in Gregory v State of Bihar1, to contend that there is no wilful act on the part of the occupier or set a trap or set a naked live wire with a deliberate intention to cause harm to the trespasser. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader has submitted that due to the negligence on the part of the petitioners the alleged incident has occurred and they ought to have been more careful and would not have allowed any person to enter the said area. Accordingly, submitted that investigation is already completed and charge-sheet is filed and it does not require any interference. 6. Accordingly, submitted that investigation is already completed and charge-sheet is filed and it does not require any interference. 6. Referring to occupier's liability insofar as the trespasser is concerned in the judgment in Cherub in Gregory's case, referred to above it is held that 'It is, no doubt, true that the trespasser enters the property at his own risk and the occupier owes no duty to take any reasonable care for his protection, but at the same time the occupier is not entitled to do wilfully acts such as set a trap or set a naked live wire with the deliberate intention of causing harm to trespassers or in reckless disregard of the presence of the trespassers'. As per Section 304-A of the IPC, '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'. 7. In the instant case, it is seen that on 6-9-2005 around 12.00 noon the boy aged 12 years who went to drink the water and to take bath died on the spot due to short-circuit and grounding of the G.I. Pipe when he came in contact with the same. The statement of one of the witnesses reveals that he also went to the spot around 9.30 a.m. on the same day and having started the starter, he has taken the water for drinking and went away towards the school. Earlier to the alleged incident to such grounding was reported. Subsequently, as contended by the learned. Counsel for the petitioners the submersible motor of the borewell was burnt due to the short-circuit or some other reason and there was grounding of the entire G.I. Pipe and on coming into contact with such pipe or the nearby place, the death occurred of which, the petitioners apparently were not aware and also it was not within their knowledge so as to take care to prevent anybody reaching the place and nor was it the deliberate act on their part although there was a responsibility on the part of the occupier to keep informed or to display the warning board. But, in the instant case the alleged incident occurred as an accidental one and it was not in anticipation of the petitioners nor they were required to anticipate or take due care in anticipation of such a remote possibility of grounding. Under such circumstances, although investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed, as the allegation against the petitioners do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, proceeding against them on the basis of charge-sheet filed would amount to abuse of process of law. 8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The charge-sheet filed and also the proceedings pending thereon in C.C. No. 272 of 2005 before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yelburga are quashed.