The learned v. Sfate of Maharashtral. ln the said case tl're allegations were under Section

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to quash CC No. 4681 of 2022 to the extent of petitioners herein/ 43 & A4 on the file of the Court of the ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge Cum ll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal District in the interest of justice, l.A. NO: 1OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including appearance so far as petitioners are concerned in CC No. 4681 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the ll Addl. Jun or Civil Judge Cum ll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Warangal District pending disposal of the Crl. Petition. Between: 1 Sriram Srikanth, S/o Paralokam, aged about 39 Years, Occ. Asst. Engineer TGNPDCL lT Wing, Corporate Office, Nakkalagutta, Hanarnkonda R/o 9-200, Kamalapur, Hanamkonda District. 2 Chandraji Prashanth, S/o Muralidhar aged about 49 years Occ. ADE/ Protection/ TGNPDCL/ Mahbubabad Town R/o 13-2-115, Jyothi Colony, lMattewada Warangal. AND .. Petitioners/Accused 1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosec.utor, High Court at Hyderabad. ...Respondent 2 Smt iVyathari Roopa, W/o. Venu, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Tailor, R/o. Vaddeman Village of Bijinapally [t/andall, Nagarkurnool Dist ... Respondent/Defacto-Com plai nant. 3. Kusa Ra'na Devi, W/o Late Kusa Mohan Aged 36 years, Kuntapally village, Sangan l/andal, Warangal District. (As per Court order dt.0710512025 in lA.No.2/2025 Cause tifle is amended.) ...Respondents/Defacto-Com plai nant l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS Act, praying that in the circumstances stated in the lvlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition. the High Court may be pleased to pass orders for amendment of cause title by substituting the 3'd respondent herein in the place of 2nd respondent as defacto complainant in Crl. Petition No.6207 of 2025 and lA.No.1 of 2025 in Crl. Petition No.6207 of 2025. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVlemorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of t\rlr. tM V RAMA RAO, Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. JITHENDER RAO VEERAIVALLA, the Additional Public Prosecutor (TG) on behalf of the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for tlre Respondent No.2. (* :r-ri :; iij:r :i'' S{t5t'. :Pi::il.,, ?rgi ; t' ::1"- s'i t :t'',1 ,.1 - THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6207 OF 2025 ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners - accused seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4681 of 2022 on the file of the learned ll Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-ll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, registered for the offences under Section 304-A of the lndian Penal Code (for short "lPC")

2. Heard the submissions of Sri lVl.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that the petitioners herein are accused Nos.3 and 4 and are the Employees of NPDCL and that the allegations under Section 304-4 do not attract against these petitioners who have performed their routine official duties, but for that they are not concerned with the alleged incident of death of the victim. He therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners g I e ) 4 The learned Assistant pubric prosecutor has submitted to pass appropriate orders

5. Peruserd the record

6. lt reveals that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4 ancl they are the Assistant Engineer and ADE protection of TGtu1PDCL. The allegations in the complaint point out that the husband of the de-fact<l complainant was working in Grampanchayat as Electrician and that on the alleged date of incident, her husband reft the house on being called by a Line_men to attend to a repair work of a transformer, after which slre received a phone call that her husband sustained electric shock ancl feil down from the transformer, as a result he sustained burn injuries and died 7 Section 304-4 of the lpc is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference"- Causi ng death by negtigence.-Whoevercauses fhe death of any person by doing any rash or negligent atct ,ot antounting to curpabre homicide, shatt bi p"unishetd wittt intprisonment of either description roi a teii which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 8 To attract the said offence, the persons must have committed any rash and negrigent Act, which resurted in the death of the person J

9. The learned petitioner counsel relied upon Yuvrai Laxmilal Kanther & Another Vs. Sfate of Maharashtral. ln the said case tl're allegations were under Section 304 Part ll of lPC. The work of decoration on front side of the shop was undertaken by two employees of the appellant and they were provided with an lron Ladder. While they were working on the sign board which was approximately at a height of 12 feet from the ground level, they were struck by electricity and as a result, they got electrocuted and fell down, sustained injuries and died. The allegations were leveled under Section 304-ll of IPC against the owners who were the appellants. lt was held in the said case that it cannot be said that the appellants had knowledge that by asking the two deceased- employees to work on the sign board as a part of decoration work and that such an act was likely to cause death of the two deceased employees. As such, no prima-facie case can be said to have been made out against the appellants. lf that be so, the subsequent requirement of having knowledge that the act was likely to cause the death, but not having any intention to cause death would become irrelevant. With the said observations, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed. I | [-arvSuit (SC) 349 I, 4

10. The above cited decision squarely applies to the case on hand. ln the present case the two petitioners are the employees i.e., the petitioner No.1 working as the Engineer in the lr u/ing and petitioner Nr: 2 working as ADE protection. They were not even in direct contact with the victim herein ancr the conrpraint itserf discloses that he left the house on being called by one Hariyan, linemen of their viilage and whire attending to his duties he died due to electric shock. No rash and negrigent act can be attributed to the petitioners herein and the continuation of the proceedings against the petitionerrs would result in abuse of process of law.

11. ln the light of the above cited decision and in view of the above held discussion, the criminal petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners in c.c.No.46B 1 of 2022 on the file of the learned il Additionar Junior civil Judge-cum-il Additionar Judicial Mar;istrate of First crass, warangal are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if ?ry, shall stand closed' sd/- A.H.s. cownt STANT REGI 'HANKAR //TRUE COPY// \SEcTloN oFFlcER ! i

1. The ll-Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal Dist. 2. The Station House Officer, Sangam Police Station, Commissionerate Wararrgal Dist.

3. Two (lCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of TS at Hyderabad. (OUT) 4. One ,lC to Mr. M V RAMA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies To, HIGH COURT DATED i 1210912025 I ) ORDER CRLP.No.6207 of 2025 r:) (i) 11. t * liic S [i i ri]u ?825 z * The Criminal Petition is Allowed. @ I \,\ 1o { A}\t