Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner is an Architect Engineer by profession and is the co-founder of Crest Architects, Bangalore. One Chandrashekar, owner of a residential site situated at 20th Main, 4th Block bearing No.403 of Nandini Layout approaches the petitioner to design his house. Upon inspecting the property personally, the petitioner took the dimensions of the property and owner's requirements for drawing up a design. The owner of the site agreed to the terms of the petitioner and entered into an agreement to design his house on 25-09-2019. In terms of the agreement, the petitioner fulfilled the requirement of the owner as per law. The construction of the building and the plan of action for such construction was entrusted to a contractor by the site owner. The petitioner had only drawn up the design and had also visited the site on several occasions to see whether the construction was coming up according to the design. The visits, according to the petitioner were once in a month.

4. On 10-10-2020 an employee by name Mukesh who was working under the contractor died due to electrocution while undertaking construction in the site. It is averred by the petitioner in the petition that he came to know about the incident so happened on 10-10-2020 only when he attended house warming ceremony of the house on an invitation by the owner in the month of February 2021. On 17-02-2022 the petitioner comes to know of a crime registered against him by the Police in Crime No.249 of 2020. The petitioner was accused No.2 and the owner of the building Mr. Chandrashekar was accused No.3. The allegation in the crime was concerning the incident that happened on 10-10-2020 i.e., the death of the employee Mr. Mukesh due to electrocution. After registration of the crime, the Police conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet only against the petitioner dropping the owner who was accused No.3 for offences punishable under Section 304A r/w 34 of the IPC. It is at that juncture the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question the entire proceedings in C.C.No.28916 of 2021.

11. The petitioner, as stated earlier, is an Architect who had designed the building and had given it to the owner in terms of the agreement. The owner had entrusted the work of construction to accused No.1 under whom the worker on the day working and unfortunate incident of his death happened. It cannot be said that design of the house by the petitioner was an act of rash or negligence that had caused the death of the worker. It would be too far to stretch Section 304A of the IPC to contend that a person who had designed the house is responsible for death of a worker while undertaking construction under a contractor. In this regard reference is made to the three Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of AMBALAL D.BHATT v. STATE OF GUJARAT1 wherein it is held as follows: