ORDER : P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. The petitioner is an accused in CC No.1258 of 2017 on the files of Judicial First Class Court-I, Kochi. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioner and others alleging offence punishable under Section 304A IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that an annual meeting of Thodupuzha Round Table was scheduled to be held on 30.9.2017 at Taj Vivanta Hotel situated at Willington Island in Thoppumpadi Village, Ernakulam. 3. The lawn of the Hotel east to the lake on the western side of the Hotel was the venue selected for the meeting. ‘M/s.Pattathil Decorations,’ an establishment owned by Mr. Jomon, Charge Witness No.14 was given the contract to construct a panthal in that lawn for the conduct of the meeting. Accused No.2 the supervisor of ‘M/s. Pattathil Decorations’ was in charge of the above panthal work. The inner decoration work of the panthal was subcontracted by ‘M/s.Pattathil Decorations,’ to ‘M/s.Oorni love’ which is owned by Charge Witness No.8 and the said work was in turn subcontracted by CW8 one Lijo Paily, the first informer who is Charge Witness No.1 Lipson Joseph was a local attached to Charge Witness No.1 and he was engaged to do the work in the above site. 4. It is alleged that construction of a temporary panthal with Ion pipes and Aluminum pipes was carried out by the establishment of CW14 on 29.09.2017 which work involved nailing a GI rode of 95 cm length to the ground of the South East portion of the panthal to hold the Aluminum wall of the panthal. It is alleged that the above GI rode having sharp pointed edge penetrated into 4x16 mm2 AYFY M.V underground cable laid to energies lights provided in the lawn and in that process the GI rode came into contact with the conductor of the underground cable. 5. It is a case of prosecution that the interior decoration workers including Lipson Joseph continued their work in panthal without knowing about the above penetration of the GI rode. Lipson Joseph was doing his work by standing on a ladder with winding wires tied to his body. While so, at about 7.30 PM for the purpose of lighting the bulbs in the lawn, PW16, a worker in engineering department of the hotel switch on the breaker in the electric control panel installed on the north western side of the lawn. While so, at about 7.30 PM for the purpose of lighting the bulbs in the lawn, PW16, a worker in engineering department of the hotel switch on the breaker in the electric control panel installed on the north western side of the lawn. As a result, the current conducted by the underground cable leak through the GI rode to the poles of the panthal and the frames of the panthal. The Lipson Joseph who was doing decoration work holding winding wires by mounting a ladder resting on the panthal lawn got electrocuted a few other workers suffered mild shocks. Lipson Joseph got seriously injured because of the winding wires were stuck to his body. Injured was immediately attended by the doctors who were residing in the Hotel. After giving first aid, injured was immediately taken to the hospital of Port Trust from there he was referred to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. 6. It is alleged that if 30 MA ELCB was provided in the yard light circuit instead of the available 32 MCB, the ELCB would have tripped during electricity leakage and that would have prevented the accident. It is further alleged that there is carelessness on the part of the accused No.1 who is an Engineer of the Engineering Department of the Hotel. The second accused who supervised the work was aware that no cable to the light lawn was visible and under such circumstances acted negligently in pegging the GI rod deep into the earth without making any proper enquiries. On the basis of the above it is alleged that the accused persons committed the offences punishable under Section 304(A) IPC r/w 34 IPC. 7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri. B. Raman Pillai assisted by his retaining counsel. 8. The petitioner herein is the 1st accused. The senior counsel submitted that the solitary allegation concerning the petitioner raised in the final report is that, if 30 MA ELCB was provided in the yard light circuit instead of the available 32 MCB, the ELCB would have tripped during electricity leakage and that would have prevented the accident and the same is a careless act alleged against the petitioner. The senior counsel submitted that, even if the same is accepted, the offence under Section 304(A) IPC is not maintainable. The senior counsel submitted that, even if the same is accepted, the offence under Section 304(A) IPC is not maintainable. The senior counsel submitted that, to attract the offence under Section 304(A) IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the death of any person caused by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. 9. The senior counsel submitted that the petitioner had nothing to do with the installation of 30 MA ELCB as it was provided in the system of the Hotel much before the petitioner joined Hotel Vivanta. The senior counsel also takes me through the statements given by all the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C. and it is submitted that, even if those statements are accepted in toto, no offence under Section 304(A) of IPC is made out. The senior counsel also submitted that the allegation in the final report regarding the lack of care on the part of the petitioner in providing ELCB to the underground electric circuit is false and baseless allegations. It is also submitted that the electric circuit in respect of which the allegation is levelled namely underground electric cabling and installation of 32 MCR is a circuit layed in the year after obtaining clearance from the statutory authorities and complying with all the statutory stipulations and the same is subjected to periodic inspections by the officers of the Department of Electrical Inspectorate. 10. The senior counsel also submitted that the Electric Inspectorate annually inspect the Hotel premises and issues necessary reports recording the non confirmities noticed in any of the electrical installations and issue necessary directions for immediate rectification of any deficiencies noted. The expense for every such detailed annual inspection is borne out by the Hotel Management as evident by Annexure-B & B1 challans is the submission. After carrying out inpection for the year 2016-2017 and 2017 2018 a very detailed report was issued to the Hotel authorities highlighting the various aspects noticed in the inspection as evident by Annexure-C & C1. It is submitted that the Electrical Inspector did not find any mistake in the cabling or with any installation fixed or connected in that circuit. Hence, it is submitted that the allegation in the final report to the effect that the ELCB would have tripped if 30MA ELCB was provided instead of 32 MCB is only a finding of the investigation. Hence, it is submitted that the allegation in the final report to the effect that the ELCB would have tripped if 30MA ELCB was provided instead of 32 MCB is only a finding of the investigation. It is also submitted that the petitioner joined in Hotel Taj Viventa at Island Kochi on 15.11.2016 as evident by Annedure-D. 11. It is also submitted that when the contract of constructing the pandhal was given, the Hotel management had prohibited any digging up of the lawns in the course of carrying out the construction work. Annexure-E is the agreement between Hotel Taj Vivanta and Pattathil Decorations. Therefore, it is submitted that it is in clear violation of the express agreement between the Taj Vivanta and the contractor, the metal rod was inserted into the earth of lawn without making any enquiries with the management or the supervisors of the Hotel. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot be made liable. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the contentions raised by the petitioner can be decided only at the time of trial and this Court may not invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 12. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that there is some force in the argument of the Senior Counsel Sri.B. Raman Pillai. The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 304(A) IPC. Section 304(A) IPC is extracted hereunder: “Causing death by negligence.-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.” 13. To attract the offence under Section 304(A) IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the death is caused to any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. In this case, the only allegation against the petitioner who is the 1st accused is that, there is careless on the part of the 1st accused, who is an Engineer of the Engineering Department of the Hotel, because if 30 MA ELCB was provided in the yard light circuit instead of the available 32 MCB, the ELCB would have tripped during electric leakage and that would have prevented the accident. Based on such a finding, no criminal prosecution can be initiated against the petitioner. Admittedly the petitioner joined in Hotel Vivanta only on 15.11.2016 as evident by Annexure-D. The above electrical equipment's were fixed in the Hotel premises before that. 14. Moreover, a perusal of Annexure-C & C1 would show that even the Chief Electrical Inspector has no case that there is any mistake in the cabling or in the installation fixed or connected in the circuit. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, the prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is to be allowed. Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No.1258/2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court – I, Kochi, arising from Crime No.1161/2017 of Harbour Police Station, Ernakulam are quashed.