No Public Interest: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Culpable Homicide Charge Against Anahita Pandole In Cyrus Mistry Accident Case

A division bench of acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that there is no public interest in the PIL. Further, it is not substantiated with evidence.

“When a petition is to be filed in court, facts have to be substantiated with evidence and more particularly when a PIL is filed. Petitioner is not in know of the facts and isn't connected in the incident. In the present scenario, petition ought not be filed and not with such loose statements.…Charges are to be framed by the magistrate...We do not find public interest present in the PIL”, the court stated while dictating its order.

It was the petitioner’s case that since Pandole had "consumed alcohol" the night before the accident, she shouldn’t just be charged under section 304A of the IPC. Rather, she should be charged with section 304(II) of the IPC. Moreover, her husband was aware of this and therefore he should be charged with abetment, the petitioner said.

Offence under section 304A IPC (causing death by negligence) is punishable with up-to two-years imprisonment. Section 304(II) IPC (Culpable homicide not amounting to murder) is punishable with up to 10 years imprisonment for acts done without intention to cause death.

An FIR was registered on November 5 at the Kasa police station in Palghar district two months after the accident of September 4, 2022.

At 3.15 pm on September 4 while travelling from Ahmedabad to Mumbai, Cyrus Mistry and his friend Jahangir Pandole, who were seated in the rear seats, died in the accident, while Darius and his wife Dr Anahita seated in the front seats suffered severe injuries.

Dr. Anahita, who had suffered serious injuries in the accident, was discharged on December 22 after spending 108 days in hospital.

The petition, filed by one Sandesh Jedhe, had the following prayers:

1. File a supplementary chargesheet and add charges of 304(II) read with section 109 of the IPC against Pandole and her husband
2. Directing State to implement the Recommendations given in the Two Hundred Forty Third Report of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016.

Case Title: Sandesh Jedhe v. Union of India

Citation - 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 31

Case no: CrPIL/1/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment