Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Order Date: 22 October 2026
Case Overview
- Applicants: P.A. Inamdar & Ors. (trustees of Maharashtra Cosmopolitan Education Society), the in‑charge Principal, and various faculty, peons and lab assistants of Abeda Inamdar Senior College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Pune.
- Respondents: The State of Maharashtra (as the prosecuting authority) and the father of one of the deceased students (complainant).
- Four criminal applications were filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Application Nos. 493/2016, 568/2016, 569/2016 and 975/2016, each seeking to quash FIR No. 24/2016 dated 19‑04‑2016 registered at Murud Police Station, Raigad, under Sections 304A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Incident background: On 01‑02‑2016 the college organised a picnic to Murud beach. A total of 116 students (first, second and third‑year B.Sc. Computer Science) along with faculty and staff travelled in three buses. Approximately 41 third‑year students entered the sea water between 3:30 pm and 4:00 pm; 20‑22 were swept away by an under‑current, six were rescued, and 14 students (including the rescuer) lost their lives.
- The FIR was lodged about 80 days after an initial enquiry (ADR No. 04/2016). The applicants argued that they were either not present at the beach, or that the victims were adults capable of self‑care, and that vicarious liability could not be imposed. They relied on Supreme Court precedents (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal) and contended that no rash or negligent act as required under Section 304A could be established.
- The State, through Ms. Newton and Mr. Pungliya, contended that the applicants were negligent for failing to provide adequate supervision, safety warnings, a doctor, or a swimming‑capable staff member, and that the change of picnic date contributed to the tragedy.
- The Court examined the elements of negligence under Section 304A, the doctrine of vicarious liability, and relevant case law (Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, Kurban Hussein MohamedAlli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra, M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood, M.S. Grewal, Jacob Mathew, etc.). It emphasized that criminal negligence requires a gross degree of negligence and a proximate causal link, which was absent.
- The Court observed that the victims were adults (above 18 years), that the teachers supervising first‑ and second‑year students were not present with the third‑year batch, and that the applicants were not at the beach when the drowning occurred. No mens rea or direct negligent act could be established.
- The Court also noted that the beach is a public place; the primary duty of safety rests with the State Government, which should provide signage, lifeguards, and rescue facilities.
Final Outcome
- The High Court allowed all four criminal applications and quashed FIR No. 24/2016 in the interest of justice. The specific prayer clauses for Applications 493, 568, 569 and 975 of 2016 were each granted, resulting in the dismissal of the criminal proceedings against the trustees, principal, faculty and staff.
Topics: Negligence Law, Vicarious Liability