Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 22 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Applicants: P.A. Inamdar & Ors. (trustees of Maharashtra Cosmopolitan Education Society), several assistant professors, peons and a lab assistant of Abeda Inamdar Senior College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Pune.
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra (as prosecuting authority) and the father of a deceased student (complainant).
  • Incident: On 01‑02‑2016 the college organised a picnic to Murud beach, Raigad. 116 students (first, second and third‑year B.Sc. Computer Science) and faculty travelled in three buses. About 41 third‑year students entered the sea around 3:45 pm; 20‑22 were swept by an under‑current, 6 were rescued, and 14 drowned.
  • FIR: After an initial enquiry (ADR No.04/2016), FIR No.24/2016 dated 19‑04‑2016 was lodged at Murud Police Station against 17 college representatives under Sections 304A and 34 IPC.
  • Applications: Four criminal applications (Nos. 493, 568, 569, 975 of 2016) were filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quash of the FIR. Applications 493 concerned the trust’s office‑bearers and the principal; 568 and 569 concerned faculty supervising first‑ and second‑year students; 975 concerned faculty supervising the third‑year batch.
  • Arguments: Applicants argued lack of vicarious liability, absence of any rash or negligent act, and reliance on Supreme Court precedents (e.g., State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal). Respondents contended that the college and faculty were negligent for not providing safety warnings, medical assistance, or supervision, and that the change of picnic date contributed to the tragedy.
  • Court’s Analysis: The Court examined the elements of Section 304A IPC, emphasizing that liability requires a direct rash/negligent act that is the proximate cause of death, without intervening negligence. It found no material evidence of such an act by any of the applicants. The third‑year students were adults capable of making their own decisions; the teachers were not present at the beach when the drowning occurred; no doctor or lifeguard was on site; and the beach is a public place where the State bears responsibility for safety signage and rescue facilities. The Court also reviewed comparative jurisprudence (Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, M.S. Grewal, Jacob Mathew, etc.) and concluded that the requisite mens rea and proximate cause were absent.
  • Additional Observations: The Court noted a prior Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on beach safety, a 2006 Government Order, and the need for systematic safety measures on public beaches, directing the State Government to install signage, lifeguard posts, rescue equipment, and to monitor implementation through a dedicated cell.

Final Outcome

  • The Court allowed all four criminal applications.
  • FIR No.24/2016 is quashed and set aside in the interest of justice for each application (Nos. 493, 568, 569, 975 of 2016).
  • All criminal proceedings under Sections 304A and 34 IPC against the applicants are dismissed.
  • The State Government is directed to formulate and implement comprehensive beach‑safety measures, including signage, lifeguard deployment, rescue equipment, and regular monitoring.

Topics: Legal Liability, Public Safety, Education Sector