Judgment :- The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to call for the entire records in connection with C.C.No. 76 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri and quash the same. 2. The petitioner submitted that the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.208 of 2006 on an alleged offence under Section 304(a) of IPC against three accused persons. The petitioner herein is the 3rd accused in the said Crime Number. The charge sheet revealed that on 111. 2006 at about 4.00PM, the accused persons namely (1)Shareka (2) Antony Jude and (3) the petitioner herein had asked one Shankar to do some repair of electricity wire at the post at Sub-Station 110/33 K.V. Periapalayam. 3. On their instruction, the said Shankar, while carrying out the work, was electrocuted and fell down. This happened on the improper instruction of the accused person. Hence, the case was registered by the respondent police. Now the petitioner/accused No.3 has filed this quash petition stating that he was not responsible for the repairing work done at Poonjatti Sub-Station on the date of occurrence. The respondent police failed to see the Code of Technical instructions in connection with the Sub-station/operations and maintenance issued by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, which will prove that the petitioner is in no way responsible for the accident which took place on 111. 2006. Supporting his case, the petitioner has filed Code of Technical instruction. The petitioner has further alleged that the proceedings against this petitioner has not been initiated after obtaining proper sanction by following the procedure contemplated under Section 197 of the CrPC, when there is a specific allegation that the petitioner was negligent in discharging his official duties. Further, the Investigating Officer, before filing the charge sheet, has obtained an expert opinion from the Superior Officer of the department. Further, the prosecution has not produced any material to show that the petitioner was personally present at the scene of occurrence. Further, there is no record to prove that the petitioner was responsible for the accident which took place on 111. 2006. 4. Further, the prosecution has not produced any material to show that the petitioner was personally present at the scene of occurrence. Further, there is no record to prove that the petitioner was responsible for the accident which took place on 111. 2006. 4. Considering the contentions of the petitioner, FIR, Charge Sheet and Code of Technical instructions and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State, the Court is of the view that the presence of all the three accused persons are required to come to a correct conclusion in the prosecution case. As the case has been pending for about two years, this Court directs the learned Magistrate, Ponneri to dispose the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition No. 24315 of 2007 is disposed of. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.