ELECTRICAL EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three petitioners, who are officers of the Electric Supply Division, Katihar, Bihar State Electricity Board, have approached this Court, while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash an order dated 8/8/2006 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar in Katihar Town P.S. Case No.82 of 2005. By the said order, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 337, 338, 304A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and summoned the petitioners.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that on the basis of fardbeyan of one Pinku Kumar of village Sheoji Nagar, Katihar, an F.I.R. vide Katihar Town P.S. Case No.82 of 2005 was registered for the offence under Sections 337, 338, 304A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the three accused persons i.e. petitioners. Petitioner no.1, at the relevant time, was Executive Engineer, petitioner no.2, was Assistant Engineer and petitioner no.3 was Junior Engineer in the Electric Supply Division at Katihar. It was disclosed in the fardbeyan of the informant that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 5.2.2005 at 3.00 P.M., the informant noticed high voltage in his house and thereafter, he rushed to off the main switch and thereafter, he got electric shock and he become unconscious. Subsequently, he was carried to the hospital and after gaining his conscious, he came to know that in the locality besides the informant, several others had also received electric shock and two persons died due to electric shock. It was further disclosed in the fardbeyan of the informant that on earlier occasion, the resident of the same locality, had made complaint to the petitioners for removing the defect, which was regularly occurring in the transformer. It was alleged that the accused persons had not taken any notice to the earlier complaint. After registering F.I.R., police investigated the same and subsequently, after examining number of witnesses, charge sheet was submitted against the three petitioners and the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has taken cognizance of the offence.

(3.) Aggrieved with the order of cognizance, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present petition. Earlier in this case, notice was issued and thereafter, on 19/3/2008, stay of proceeding in the court below was granted by this court. Subsequently, on 16/9/2008, this petition was admitted for hearing and in the meanwhile, interim order of stay dated 19/3/2008 was directed to remain operative. The order of stay is still continuing.