(1.) This petition under Section 397 Criminal Procedure Code . read with Section 482 and 401 is directed against order dated 9th September, 1998 relating to framing of charges against the petitioners under Sections 430/336/337/34 IPC.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts given in the petition are as under: 2.1. The complainant was tenant of the petitioner No. 1. There was some dispute relating to electricity charges, as booster pump was connected with the electric meal of the tenant and bother were using booster pump. On 23rd August, -1996 petitioner No.2 Sh. Sharif Rangnekar son of the land lady petitioner No. 1 threatened the tenant complainant that he would connect the motor line to upstairs meter and from that point of time they would have only dry wash". At the instance of the land lord two other persons tampered with the wiring and switch board of the booster bump on 23rd August, 1996 at about 11.40 AM. At about 1.45 PM the daughter of the complainant was heating water in a vessel over a hot plate in the kitchen. She got a powerful shock and she dropped it. A few minutes later she opened the fridge and again got a shock resulting in simple hurt. One Mr. K.Swamy an engineer examined and told his wife and daughter not to touch anything as there was 100 per cent leakage enough to kill a weak or old person. As per the report prepared by Dr. Rajender Singh, Sr. Scientific Officer Grade-1 of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, the electric current leakage was detected in all electrical appliances fitted in the ground floor which was due to fresh electric wiring coming from the first floor of the premises to the main switch board. It was also found by Engineer of DESU that due to additional internal wires put for some electrical appliance on first floor jeakage took place for the connection Were wrongly done by private electrician. According to the complainant, the water supply to the ground floor was diminished deliberately and the wire changing was done to teach them a lesson which could have taken a human life. Accordingly, the charge sheet was filed on the basis of the aforesaid material. 2.2. The accused petitioners have been charged for offences under Sections 430, 336 and 337 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code under the impugned order. 2.3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.