High Court of Karnataka Quashes FIR Against BESCOM Engineers in Negligence Case — Lack of Prima Facie Evidence of Rash or Negligent Act. Section 304A IPC requires proof of gross negligence directly causing death, not mere failure of duty.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 12:55:59

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Sri Sreeramu V. and Subramanya T., who are Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer respectively at BESCOM's Whitefield Division, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash FIR No. 0601/2023 registered at Kadugodi Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was registered on 19.11.2023 based on a complaint by the second respondent, Santhosh Kumar, alleging that the petitioners' negligence caused the death of a person due to electrocution from a snapped high-tension wire. The petitioners contended that the FIR did not disclose any rash or negligent act on their part, as the incident was an accident beyond their control. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioners, being responsible for maintenance of electrical lines, failed to ensure safety. The Court, after hearing arguments, examined the FIR and found that it lacked specific allegations of any rash or negligent act by the petitioners. The Court observed that the incident occurred due to a snapped wire, which could not be attributed to any act of the petitioners. The Court held that to attract Section 304A IPC, there must be a direct causal link between a rash or negligent act and the death, which was absent. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR, and discharged the petitioners, holding that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Section 304A IPC - Rash or Negligent Act - Quashing of FIR - The petitioners, Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer of BESCOM, were sought to be prosecuted under Section 304A IPC for death due to electrocution. The Court held that the FIR did not disclose any rash or negligent act on the part of the petitioners, as the incident occurred due to a snapped high-tension wire which was not attributable to any act of the petitioners. The Court quashed the FIR, observing that mere failure to prevent the incident does not constitute criminal negligence under Section 304A IPC. (Paras 1-10)

B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - Quashing of FIR - The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR, as the allegations did not make out a prima facie case against the petitioners. The Court held that continuing the proceedings would be an abuse of process of law. (Paras 8-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the FIR registered under Section 304A of IPC against the petitioners, who are engineers of BESCOM, for alleged negligence leading to death of a person due to electrocution, should be quashed for lack of prima facie case.

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.0601/2023 dated 19.11.2023 registered at Kadugodi Police Station for offence under Section 304A of IPC is quashed. The petitioners are discharged from the proceedings.

Law Points

Section 304A IPC requires proof of rash or negligent act directly causing death
not mere negligence or failure of duty
criminal negligence must be gross and culpable
quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC when no prima facie case exists

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (08) 1

Writ Petition No.16281 of 2024 (GM-RES)

2024-08-06

M. Nagaprasanna

Sri D.R. Ravishankar (Senior Advocate) for Smt. Siri Rajashekar (Advocate) for petitioners; Sri B.N. Jagadeesh (Additional SPP) for respondent 1

Sri Sreeramu V. and Subramanya T.

The State of Karnataka and Santhosh Kumar

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR registered under Section 304A IPC.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to set aside the FIR in Crime No.0601/2023 dated 19.11.2023 for offence under Section 304A IPC.

Filing Reason

Petitioners, being engineers of BESCOM, were implicated in an FIR alleging negligence causing death due to electrocution from a snapped high-tension wire.

Issues

Whether the FIR under Section 304A IPC discloses any prima facie case of rash or negligent act against the petitioners. Whether the FIR should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process of law.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the FIR does not contain any specific allegation of rash or negligent act; the incident was an accident due to snapped wire, not attributable to them. Respondent State argued that the petitioners, being responsible for maintenance, failed to ensure safety, amounting to negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

For an offence under Section 304A IPC, there must be a direct causal link between a rash or negligent act and the death. Mere failure to prevent an accident or absence of safety measures does not constitute criminal negligence unless the act is shown to be rash or negligent. The FIR lacking such allegations is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Judgment Excerpts

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. Heard Sri D R Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B N Jagadeesh, learned Additional SPP for respondent 1.

Procedural History

The FIR was registered on 19.11.2023. The petitioners filed the present writ petition on an unspecified date. The petition was heard and reserved for orders on 23.07.2024, and pronounced on 06.08.2024.