Raees Promotion Stampede | Gujarat High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Actor Shah Rukh Khan

As per the FIR registered in this matter, Shahrukh Khan was Travelling on a Train from Mumbai to Delhi to promote his film Raees in the year 2017. When the train reached the Vadodara railway station, a huge crowd gathered to get a glimpse of Khan.

During the promotion, Shah Rukh Khan waived his hand and threw t-shirts and balls among the people, due to which a stampede was caused and the police had to lathi-charge the Public. Further, due to the stampede, one person had died, several people got injured and two policemen had fainted during the event.

After the said incident, a Local Congressman, Jitendra Solanki filed a complaint in the matter and the police lodged a case against Khan thereafter, the court took cognizance of the case issued him summon to face charges under Sections 336, 337, and 338 of IPC and Sections 145, 150, 152, 154 and 155 (1) (a) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Subsequently, Khan approached the High Court for quashing the FIR and the High Court stayed the trial in July 2017. Now, today the court has quashed the criminal complaint and the summoning order issued against the Bollywood Actor.

Court's observations 

The Court noted that Khan was promoting his movie at the Railway Station, after having obtained permission for doing so from the concerned authorities. Further, the Court observed that neither his acts could be termed as being of an extremely high degree of negligence or recklessness nor could be the acts stated to be proximate or efficient cause for the alleged incident.

Further, the Court also stressed that the alleged incidents had happened as a result of the culmination of many causes of which one of the causes may have been the act on part of the petitioner of having thrown 'smiley balls' and 'T shirts' in the crowd.

The Court also said that out of thousands of persons present in the Railway Station on the date of the incident including police personnel and railway staff, none of the persons who might have been injured on account of the incident or even witnessed the incident had complained about the same