This petition is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-II final report against the petitioners in Crime No.190/2009 of Kalady Police Station, which was filed u/ss.336, 304A r/w.34 IPC. The petitioners are teachers of Bavens Adarsha Vidyalaya, Kakkanad. On 14.02.2009, they conducted a study tour with 137 students of Standard VII to Mulamkuzhi- Malayattur region under the control of the petitioners as well as the 4th accused. While the students were playing with a ball near Perinthodu, which fell into periyar river, one of the students, who is the son of the 2nd respondent, slipped and fell into the river, when he was trying to take the ball from the river and drowned in the river. On the basis of information, Kalady Police registered the above crime against the teachers to the effect that they had not maintain Teacher-Student ratio of 1:15, while conducting tour and thereby committed the offence.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners. According to him, if any teacher- student ratio is violated, the proper remedy is to take disciplinary action against the institution and not registering a criminal against the petitioners. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings by invoking the inherent jurisdiction.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the teacher -student ratio of 1:15 has not been maintained, while conducting the study tour.
4. I have verified the averments in Annexure-II. Prima facie, no materials are produced before this Court to show that any overt act from the side of the petitioner was committed in the alleged offence. According to Section 336 IPC, whoever does any act so rashly or neglegently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished. But, no rash or negligent act from the side of the petitioners was alleged in the complaint. But, such act endangering the human life or the personal safety of others is also not mentioned in the complaint.
5. In order to attract Section 304A of IPC, the prosecution has to allege that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide. There is no averment in Annexure-II that any conduct or any act from the side of the petitioners for committing any rash or negligent act for causing the death of Nandagopan. When prima facie case is not made out against the petitioners, the trial of the case is a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 of Cr.P.C.
6. According to Section 482 Cr.P.C., the inherent power can be invoked to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] held s follows:
“where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed”.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Annexure-II final report against petitioners in Crime No.190/2009 of Kalady Police Station is hereby quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction.
P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.
acd