ORDER : V. Sujatha, J. This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [for short Cr.P.C], seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.521 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool District, Kurnool, for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A IPC, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.2. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.10.2017 at about 6.30p.m. while the deceased was crossing the road in front of Bugga Rameswara Swamy temple, Kalva Bugga village, the accused No.1, being driver of the Car bearing registration No.AP 04 AT 0023 coming from Nandyal side, drove the same in rash and negligent manner, without blowing horn, hit the deceased, who fell down and died on the spot with bleeding injuries. The same was informed to the 3rd respondent/ who is the defacto complainant. On 02.10.2017 basing on the report of the 3rd respondent herein, the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.214 of 2017 under Section 304A IPC of Orvakal Police Station against the car driver, the National Highway Authority Road No.42 and KMC Constructions Authorities. After completion of investigation, police filed Charge Sheet against the accused 1 to 3 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.521 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C.. 3. The allegation against the accused No.2 and 3, who are the NH-40 High way Authorities and KMC constructions authorities are that as they have not provided under turner bridge and road divider on the road in front of Bugga Rameswara Swamy temple, no rumble strips to pass the vehicles slowly in front of temple and no direction boards as well as radium stickers were provided to avoid the access in front of the said temple, as such due to their negligence present accident has occurred. 4. The grievance of the petitioner herein/A2 is that the petitioner is a Project Director of the Project Implementation Unit, National Highways authority of India, Nandyal and the petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2 in the above Calendar Case. The petitioner’s office is only a Project Implementation unit and the petitioner is a Project Director, which is part and parcel of the National Highways Authority of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. The petitioner’s office is only a Project Implementation unit and the petitioner is a Project Director, which is part and parcel of the National Highways Authority of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. The National Highways are meticulously planned by high qualified engineers taking into consideration not only safety issues but also all other connected issues, so as to provide a fast, safe, steamless, hassle free travel and the authorities have provided sub-roads crossing points etc. for convenience of the commuters who wish to cross the road at suitable places based on the requirement but several people to save time or avoid distance, choose the risk of crossing the road at unstrategic, undesignated and dangerous places on the road and suddenly come across thigh speed vehicles, risking not only their own lives but also others, which has evidently happened in the present case. But the Investigation Officer without ascertaining the realm and scope of the duties of the petitioner, has irresponsibly arrayed the petitioner as an accused and issue notices to him. She further submits that the petitioner is neither the owner nor driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 04 AT 0023 which is alleged to have caused accident to the father of the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant and the case is foisted against the petitioner without any overt acts and none of the offences attracted to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is no way concerned with making provision for under tunnel, road crossing as alleged in the complaint, since, provision for road crossing has to be made in the DPR prepared by the Technical Consultants and once, the alignment is finalized and road is laid, the petitioner does not have any role or power to make any changes to the approved alignment and make any provision thereafter. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Though notice served on the 3rd respondent, none appeared. Perused the material on record. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. Though notice served on the 3rd respondent, none appeared. Perused the material on record. 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the material on record, the point that would emerge for determination is : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.521 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC? 7. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 8. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. 8. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 9. It is a well settled principle of law that when a prosecution is sought to be intervened by quashment, the test to be applied is to see whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima-facie establish the offences alleged or not. 10. For better appreciation, Section 304-A of IPC is extracted hereunder : 304A. 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.” 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of direct nexus between the death of a person, the charge sheet filed against the present petitioner-accused No.2 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC, is without any substance. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the absence of direct nexus between the death of a person, the charge sheet filed against the present petitioner-accused No.2 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC, is without any substance. 12. In support of her submissions, she has placed reliance on the decision dated 15.07.2006 of the Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.1769/2002, in B.E. Chandrashekar and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 Cri.L.J. 486 wherein it is held as under:- “8. …. The Apex court, while dealing with the applicability of Section 304A has held that the act causing the deaths "must be the causa causans". "In a prosecution for an offence under Section 304A, the mere fact that an accused contravenes certain rules and regulations in the doing of an act which causes death of another, does not establish that the death was the result of rash and negligent act or that any such act was the proximate and efficient cause of the death. If that were so, the acquittal of the appellant for contravention of the provisions of the Act and the Rules would itself have been an answer and we would have then examined to what extent the additional evidence of his acquittal would haw to be allowed. One will have to see whether there was any contravention of the Rules and if so, to what extent. Apparently, in the case on hand, there was no contravention of any Rule. The said High Tension Line was drawn much prior to the construction of the building in question. Apparently, the said building did not have any access to go to the roof. As to how the boy climbed on to the roof to retrieve the ball and came in contact with the live High Tension Wire with a pole in his hand is a mystery by itself. But the facts remain that he died. ….. 11. It is to be noticed that the rash and negligent act referred to Section 304A means an act which is an immediate cause of death and not an act which can, at best, said to be a remote cause of death. But the facts remain that he died. ….. 11. It is to be noticed that the rash and negligent act referred to Section 304A means an act which is an immediate cause of death and not an act which can, at best, said to be a remote cause of death. No doubt, the act of negligence would be to the driving of any vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life or likely to cause harm or injury to hurt a person where no harm has actually been caused. The requirement is that the death of any person must have been caused by the accused by any rash or negligent act. In other words, there must be proof that the rash or negligent act of the accused was the proximate cause of death. There must be a direct nexus between the death of the person and the rash and negligent act of the accused. In the case on hand, the prosecution has failed to garner any material to show that there is a direct nexus between the death of the young boy and the alleged act of negligence of the petitioners. Ultimately, one will have to see whether the accused were really responsible for the death of the young boy. It is unfortunate, one young life is extinguished and it is caused because of the boy corning in contact with the High-Tension wire while retrieving a ball which had fallen on the roof. But in the absence of any evidence to drive home that the negligence can be attributed to the petitioners, I am of the view that the proceedings are required to be terminated. As sated earlier, the evidence garnered by the investigation agency also does not disclose that it is the inaction on the part of the accused which has resulted in the death of the boy. The evidence of all the witnesses, at best, could be said that the construction had come up after the High Tension Wire was put up way back in the year 1965. Even if the accused were to go to trial, the prosecution certainty cannot improve upon the evidence which is collected now. Even if this evidence remains uncontroverted, to my mind, the case of negligence or trespass is not made out by the prosecution.” 13. Even if the accused were to go to trial, the prosecution certainty cannot improve upon the evidence which is collected now. Even if this evidence remains uncontroverted, to my mind, the case of negligence or trespass is not made out by the prosecution.” 13. For bringing home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to prima facie prove the negligence and then establish direct nexus between negligence of the accused and the death of the victim. In the instant case admittedly there is no direct nexus between the death of the deceased and the petitioner herein, and prima facie there is no material to attract the ingredients of the offence alleged under Section 304-A of IPC. Hence, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and therefore, liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against petitioner/A2 in C.C.No.521 of 2018 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool is hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.