Mere negligence without requisite knowledge or gross rashness attracts neither Section 304 Part II nor 304A IPC.

The complainant’s husband, Ashishbhai, who allegedly had no expertise in electrical work, was taken by the applicant to undertake electrical work at a residence on 15 September 2014.

While replacing an electric board, a tool used by Ashishbhai came into contact with a live wire, causing an electric shock and his death.

The complainant alleged that the applicant negligently assigned the electrical work to Ashishbhai and failed to remain present at the site.

An FIR was registered under Section 304 of the IPC at Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.

The applicant invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings.

Whether the allegations and charge-sheet materials disclosed a prima facie offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, particularly Section 304 Part II, of the IPC.

Whether the facts, even if accepted at face value, disclosed the offence of causing death by rash or negligent act under Section 304A of the IPC.

Whether the FIR and consequential criminal proceedings ought to be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations and supporting material do not disclose the commission of an offence.

Under Sections 299 and 304 Part II IPC, culpable homicide requires a positive act causing death, accompanied by knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, though without the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

Section 304A IPC imposes liability where death is caused by a rash or negligent act; mere error of judgment or ordinary civil negligence is insufficient, and criminal liability requires culpable or gross rashness or negligence involving conscious disregard of foreseeable consequences.

The Court held that the FIR alleged, at most, that the applicant assigned electrical work to Ashishbhai and was not present when the accident occurred.

The materials did not show that the applicant intended to cause death or possessed the requisite knowledge that assigning the work was likely to cause death, as required for Section 304 Part II IPC.

The Electrical Inspector’s report attributed the fatal shock to the deceased’s tool coming into contact with a live wire while replacing an electric board.

The Court treated this as an intervening act and found no direct, proximate causal link between the applicant’s alleged omission to supervise and the death sufficient to establish culpable rashness or negligence under Section 304A IPC.

Consequently, the continuation of the prosecution would not be justified merely because a death had occurred.

The application under Section 482 CrPC was allowed, and FIR C.R. No. I-132/2015 registered with Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside.

Rule was made absolute.