ORDER : 1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No. 601 of 2023 registered for offence punishable under Section 304A of the IPC pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru. The 1st petitioner is the Executive Engineer and the 2nd petitioner is the Assistant Executive Engineer both working in BESCOM at Whitefield Division. 2. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent no. 1. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: It is the case of the petitioners that on 19-11-2023 a complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent/complainant alleging that the complainant, his wife who was 23 years old and his daughter who was 9 months old were returning from Tamil Nadu. After alighting at Silk Board they boarded BMTC bus, alighted near Whitefield ITPL Main Road and were walking on the footpath. When they reached Hope Farm, the wife of the complainant who was carrying his daughter aged 9 months old comes in contact with the live wire which was broken and lying on the street. The wife of the complainant due to electric shock of live wire died on the spot along with the baby. Therefore, the complaint comes to be registered against several officers, two of whom are the petitioners, officers of BESCOM, accused No. 1 is the Executive Engineer and accused No. 3 is the Assistant Executive Engineer working at Whitefield Division. The other accused are the Assistant Engineer, accused No. 2; Junior Engineer, accused No. 4 and Station Operator, accused No. 5. 4. The said incident of death of the wife and the daughter of the complainant became a hue and cry in the locality. It is then, the 1st petitioner was transferred and the 2nd petitioner was placed under suspension. The 1st petitioner’s transfer became subject matter of challenge before this Court in Writ Petition No. 27441 of 2023. A coordinate Bench of this Court sets the transfer order aside holding that the transfer was contrary to the Government order dated 07-06-2013. Likewise, the 2nd petitioner calls the order of suspension in question before this Court in Writ Petition No. 27348 of 2023. The suspension order also comes to be quashed by the very coordinate Bench. A coordinate Bench of this Court sets the transfer order aside holding that the transfer was contrary to the Government order dated 07-06-2013. Likewise, the 2nd petitioner calls the order of suspension in question before this Court in Writ Petition No. 27348 of 2023. The suspension order also comes to be quashed by the very coordinate Bench. After quashment of those two orders, challenge is now laid to the crime so registered against the petitioners on the score that observations in the orders of quashment of transfer and suspension would enure to the benefit of the petitioners, to hold that for the death of the wife and the child of the complainant, the petitioners cannot be held responsible and . therefore, Section 304A of the IPC cannot be invoked. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that in terms of roles and responsibilities and the job chart, the petitioners have nothing to do with maintenance of wires. At best it could be the Assistant Engineer who may be responsible and the petitioners are Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer. It is his submission that no wrong doing can be directly attributed to the petitioners. He would place heavy reliance upon the report of Electrical Inspectorate which holds that it has happened due to high impendence surface for which no wrong doing can be directly attributed to these petitioners. He therefore contends that ingredients of Section 304A of the IPC are not made out in the case at hand. He would seek quashment of registration of crime in Crime No. 601 of 2023. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions to contend that the matter is still at the stage of investigation. The role, responsibility or act allowing the live wire on the street, upon which the wife and the child of the complainant trampled upon, is attributable to some officers, five of whom are named as accused. Everybody cannot wash off their hands on the basis of report of an officer of Electrical Inspectorate, who is an officer of BESCOM. Therefore, investigation in the least is necessary in such cases. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The incident in the case at hand happens on 19-11-2023. Therefore, investigation in the least is necessary in such cases. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The incident in the case at hand happens on 19-11-2023. The complainant and his wife were walking on the footpath of ITPL Main road, along with their 9 months old daughter, in the early morning hours at 6.00 a.m. A snapped or broken wire of 11 KV, F9 feeder of 66 KW was hanging which could not be noticed by the complainant or his wife. But his wife comes in contact with the live/broken wire and dies due to electrocution, at which time she was carrying 9 months old child also. It is the averment in the petition that two complaints had already been registered with the BESCOM helpline seeking help to rectify the wire that was hanging by local residents. The vital accident happens near Hope Farm Circle at about 6-00 a.m. This results in huge hue and cry of the general public. Therefore, a report is sought from the Electrical Inspectorate in the form of an investigation. The investigation leads to absolving of all the officers. The report insofar as it is germane reads as follows: “.................. The recommendation of the Electrical Inspectorate is that old wires which are in dilapidated condition should be identified and replaced by UG/overhead cables. Likewise several safety measures are also recommended by the Inspectorate to avoid such instances in future. The 1st petitioner on account of the incident had been transferred and the 2nd petitioner was placed under suspension; both of which became subject matter of writ petitions noted hereinabove. Both the writ petitions were allowed by this Court as stated supra. 9. Since the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has placed heavy reliance on the order passed by the coordinate Bench setting aside the order of suspension, it becomes germane to notice the said order. It reads as follows: “.................. 3. The petitioner was working as the Assistant Executive Engineer and was In-charge of the area in which the incident occurred. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said incident the Department of Electrical Inspectorate conducted an enquiry and submitted an electrical accident report in relation to that event. In this report it has been stated as follows: 4. The petitioner was working as the Assistant Executive Engineer and was In-charge of the area in which the incident occurred. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the said incident the Department of Electrical Inspectorate conducted an enquiry and submitted an electrical accident report in relation to that event. In this report it has been stated as follows: 4. A reading of the said report would indicate that no specific allegation of wrongdoing has been attributed to the petitioner. The observation of the report basically indicate that the incident could have been prevented if certain preventive measures had been taken. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner cannot be attributed directly for that particular incident. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Bangalore Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (for short ‘BESCOM’) however, submits that as the Assistant Executive Engineer, it was the duty of the petitioner to ensure inspection of studying voltage and road condition of various feeders, for improvement, for formulating proposals estimates and he was also in-charge of repair and maintenance works, and therefore, he would have to ultimately take responsibility, since the report also indicates that the lines which had snapped were old and were required to be replaced. 6. In my view, the report of the Electoral Inspector, as extracted above, only indicates that, had the preventive action been taken, the incident could have been averted. This observation is only general in nature and from this no wrong doing can be individually attributed to the petitioner. Since no wrongdoing has been attributed directly to the petitioner, in my view, in the light of the Electoral Inspector report, the impugned order of suspension cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly quashed. Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed.” The observation is that the Electrical Inspectorate of the Department had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. The report depicts that it was nobody’s fault and, therefore, the order of suspension is quashed. No doubt, the report did indicate that it was faulty wire and to avoid such instances in future several remedial measures are indicated. 10. The issue now would be, whether these officers of BESCOM could be held prima facie guilty of negligence, as obtaining under Section 304A of the IPC, as it is not that this is the first instance or the instance has all of a sudden happened. 10. The issue now would be, whether these officers of BESCOM could be held prima facie guilty of negligence, as obtaining under Section 304A of the IPC, as it is not that this is the first instance or the instance has all of a sudden happened. This incident cannot be compared to branch of a tree falling on the passer by. The snap or a broken live wire had been brought to the notice of the Department through BESCOM helpline. It is said that the Junior Engineer was to attend to it, as it was his duty to immediately attend to helpline complaints. Merely because other officers from Station Operator in the hierarchy have different roles and responsibility, they being officers of BESCOM in the operation and maintenance department, have to undertake periodical checks of wires that are snapped and hanging. It is here the role of all these persons would become applicable. 11. The recommendation is, old wires are not replaced. Several other instances that happened in the procurement of materials by the KPTCL are also held to be responsible. If some sub-standard material is procured, it would undoubtedly result in such things. Therefore, responsibility would flow from the top brass to the lowest rung of officials. In the considered view of the Court, none can escape the responsibility, when it is the act of negligence in setting things right by the officers. If it is an act of God, it is again an altogether different circumstance. But, due to negligence of these officers of BESCOM, it led to the unfortunate incident of precious lives of citizens casually lost. 12. At this stage, it becomes apposite to notice a judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Madhuri Patel v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2021 SCC Online Chh. 913 wherein it is held as follows: “.................. 9. The question as to whether the petitioner was gross negligent or not in death of Reshamlal for the purpose of Section 304A of the IPC, is a matter to be considered during the course of trial on the basis of evidence on record. At this stage even before framing of charges on the basis of material available on record, it cannot be held that there is no evidence on record against the petitioner to connect him in the aforesaid offences including offence under Section 304A of the IPC. 10. At this stage even before framing of charges on the basis of material available on record, it cannot be held that there is no evidence on record against the petitioner to connect him in the aforesaid offences including offence under Section 304A of the IPC. 10. The Supreme Court in the matter of Syad Akbar (supra) has held that where negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not negligence merely based upon an error of judgment. 11. As such, the question of gross negligence, if any, on the part of the petitioner has to be established by the prosecution during the course of the trial. As such, taking the entire material available on record, it cannot be held that no offence under Section 304A, 287 and 337 of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. (Emphasis supplied) I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The petitioner before the High Court of Chhattisgarh was a Junior Engineer of Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company like BESCOM. A deceased therein had received electrical burn injuries when he was connecting electrical line in the transformer. The deceased succumbed to injuries and died. Proceedings against the Junior Engineer were permitted to continue for offences punishable under Section 304A of the IPC. I am in complete agreement with what is held by the Chhattisgarh High Court. There are plethora of judgments rendered by different High Courts on the issue, some confirming continuation of investigation or trial against the officers of Electricity Department and some quashing. The issue, in the subject lis, is with regard to the petitioners being responsible or otherwise. 13. Merely because Electrical Inspectorate of the Department has submitted a report holding that nobody can be held responsible, it would not mean that these petitioners will be left off the hook, investigation in the least, should be permitted to continue. Whether there was a complaint registered before the BESCOM helpline prior to the said incident and whether the officers took note of the said call from the residents of the area and attended immediately thereto, are all a matter of investigation. Whether there was a complaint registered before the BESCOM helpline prior to the said incident and whether the officers took note of the said call from the residents of the area and attended immediately thereto, are all a matter of investigation. It is trite law that negligence is to be understood to be an omission to do something, which a reasonable man guided upon the consideration of conduct of human affairs should do, would omit to do those reasonable affairs. Consideration of negligence is different in civil and criminal law. They do not go hand in hand in certain circumstances. 14. In the case at hand, the wife and the child of the complainant die. Therefore, there is death due to negligence. Who is responsible for the negligent act is always a matter of investigation or trial, as the case would be, as existence of the duty to take care is the first and fundamental of the ingredient of a criminal action brought on the basis of negligence. Breach of such duty would lead to consequences flowing from the action that happens due to such breach. At the stage of procurement, till the man on the field who would supervise should be rather diligent that such instances would be obviated. Unfortunately for the negligent act of officers of the Electricity Department, be it any of the ESCOMS of KPTCL, or KPTCL, innocent lives of citizens, are so casually lost. The life of a citizen which is casually lost cannot be buried, holding no role on the part of the officers of the Electricity Department. They need to be responsible and accountable. Therefore, it is high time that these officers wake up, right from top brass to the man on the field and put their effort to obviate such instances being repeated overall again, as a citizen cannot bear the impact of repetition of such negligence, leading to death of lives. 15. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, this is not a case where investigation in Crime No. 601 of 2023 needs to be quashed on the ground of Electrical Inspectorate of the Department giving a clean chit to all the officers. Matter requires investigation and investigation is a must in such cases. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER: (i) The Writ Petition stands rejected. Matter requires investigation and investigation is a must in such cases. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER: (i) The Writ Petition stands rejected. (ii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the investigation or proceedings that would be initiated against them or any other accused persons.