Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: October 22, 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicants – P.A. Inamdar & Ors., Samruddhi S. Sawant & Ors., Marathe Nameeta Prabhakar & Ors., Shakila Abdul Wahab Siddavatm & Ors.; Respondents – State of Maharashtra & Anr. (the State) and the complainant (father of a deceased student).
  • Applications: Four criminal applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Criminal Application Nos. 493, 568, 569 and 975 of 2016, seeking quash of FIR No.24 of 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 organized a picnic to Murud beach. A total of 116 students (first, second and third‑year B.Sc. Computer Science) along with faculty and staff attended. Approximately 41 third‑year students entered the sea water between 3:30‑4:00 pm; 20‑22 were swept by an under‑current, 6 were rescued, and 14 students (including the rescuer) drowned.
  • FIR Registration: After an initial enquiry (ADR No.04 of 2016), FIR No.24/2016 was lodged about 80 days later against 17 accused persons – the trustees, principal, faculty members and other college employees.
  • Applicants’ Submissions:
  • Mr. Mundargi (advocate for trustees and principal) argued that vicarious liability cannot be imposed on the trust’s office‑bearers and that the facts fall within the Supreme Court’s Bhajan Lal illustrations, warranting quash of the criminal proceedings.
  • Mr. Biradar (advocate for faculty, peons and lab assistant) contended that the accused only supervised first‑ and second‑year students who returned safely; the third‑year batch, whose members drowned, was not under their supervision, and no negligent act can be attributed to them.
  • The applicants emphasized that No‑Objection Certificates were obtained from parents, that they took all reasonable care, and that the FIR represented a misuse of the judicial process.
  • Respondents’ Submissions:
  • Ms. Newton (representing the State) asserted that the applicants were directly responsible for ensuring student safety and failed to prevent the students from entering the sea, constituting negligence.
  • Mr. Pungliya (advocate for the complainant) highlighted inconsistencies in the survivor’s testimony, alleged that the picnic date was changed unilaterally, that no doctor or swimmer was present, and that the principal and HOD planned the trip, thereby attracting criminal negligence.
  • Legal Provisions Discussed:
  • Section 304A IPC – causing death by negligence; requires a rash or negligent act that is the direct and proximate cause of death without intervening negligence.
  • Precedents cited: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap (1902), Kurban Hussein Mohamed‑Alli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra (1964), M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood (2001), M.S. Grewal case on minors, Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005), Sushil Ansal v. State (2014), Melvin Kumar v. K.S. Harisha (2019), and various English law authorities on vicarious liability.
  • Court’s Reasoning:
  • For Application No.493 (trustees and principal): No evidence that they were present at the beach or that any rash act on their part caused the deaths; thus Section 304A does not apply.
  • For Applications Nos.568 and 569 (faculty supervising first‑ and second‑year students): They were with their respective batches, which returned safely; liability cannot be imputed merely because they belong to the same institution.
  • For Application No.975 (faculty supervising third‑year batch): Although they accompanied the 41 students, the deaths resulted from an accidental drowning; there is no material establishing a direct or proximate negligent act by the applicants, nor any mens rea or gross negligence.
  • The Court emphasized that adult students (above 18) are capable of making their own decisions, and the incident occurred at a public beach; therefore, vicarious liability on the college or its trustees is untenable.
  • The Court also noted the State’s responsibility to ensure safety measures at public beaches, directing the Maharashtra Government to formulate and implement comprehensive beach‑safety policies (signage, lifeguards, rescue equipment, demarcated safe zones, etc.).

Final Outcome

  • All four criminal applications (Nos. 493, 568, 569 and 975 of 2016) are allowed.
  • FIR No.24/2016 is quashed and set aside in each case, with the order phrased as: “Quash and set aside FIR bearing C.R. No. 24/2016 of Murud Police Station, Tehsil – Murud, District – Raigad for offence under Section 304A r/w. 34 of IPC in the interest of justice.”
  • The State Government is directed to implement beach‑safety measures as outlined by the Court.

Topics: Legal Liability, Education Sector Safety