- (1.) VIRENDRA Saran, J. Learned coun sel for the applicant and learned State counsel are agreed that this revision may be finally disposed of.
(2.) THE applicant has been charge-sheeted in Case Crime No. 153 of 1994, under Section 288/304-A, I. P. C. of Police Station Dasashwamedh, District Varanasi and the case is now pending in the Court of III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi as Criminal Case No. 736 of 1996. According to the prosecution al legations which are contained in the FIR on 6-7-1995 informant Sapari Sarkar, his father-in-law Bhelai son of Buddhu, Vinod Vishvash and Niranjan were engaged in repairing a house. The applicant is the owner thereof. All of a sudden a wall of the house fell down as a result of which Vinod Vishvash sustained injuries and Bhelai who came under the debries died. The police investigated the case and charge-sheeted the applicant. The only allegations against the applicant is that the applicant is the owner of the house where the repair work was going on and in that process the wall fell down. Taking the allegations of the FIR at the face value, it is simply a case of acciden tal falling of the wall during repair work, it is not even alleged that the applicant was there at the spot. In (act he did nothing due to which the wall fell down. Section 304-A. I. P. C. states as under: "whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amount ing to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend lo two years, or with fine, or with both". (Emphasis supplied)
(3.) IN the instant case there is nothing to show that the applicant's act was rash or negligent in any manner, which may attract Section 3g4-A, I. P. C. Similarly the ingredient of Section 288, I. P. C. are also wanting because there is not even an allegation that the applicant had knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order with that building as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life. IN the instant case the masons were working to repair the house and there is not even a whisper that the repairing work was of dangerous character. IN fact the wall had fallen down accidentally. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that no offence is disclosed from the plain reading of the FIR. The prosecution of the applicant is bad in law and the proceedings against him ought not be allowed to go on. In my opinion it is also a case in which the Court should suo moto exercise its powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. to avoid harassment of an innocent person.;