Premraj @ Baba Baburao Daware vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S. Talegaon, Dist. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 798 Bom

Bombay High Court

Premraj @ Baba Baburao Daware vs State Of Mah., Thr. P.S. Talegaon, Dist. ... on 23 January, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:1162-DB


                                                                          apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt
                                                       (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                          CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO.920 OF 2019

                       Premraj @ Baba Baburao Daware,
                       Aged about 67 Years,
                       Occupation : Business,
                       R/o 169, Vivekanand Nagar,
                       Wardha Road, Nagpur.                             ..... APPLICANT

                                               // VERSUS //


                1.     State of Maharashtra, through
                       Police Station Talegaon,
                       District Wardha.

                2.     Sunil s/o Sacchitanand Pal,
                       Aged about 37 Years,
                       R/o. Quarter No.8,
                       Second - 25, Obra Colony,
                       Obra Sonbhadra,
                       District Obra Sonbhadra,
                       Uttarpradesh.                            .... NON-APPLICANTS

                -------------------------------------------
                          Mr. Abhay Sambre, Advocate for applicant.
                          Mr. A. M. Kadukar, APP for non-applicant No.1/State.
                -------------------------------------------

                                        CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
                                        RESERVED ON   : 21.01.2026
                                        PRONOUNCED ON : 23.01.2026

                JUDGMENT :

1. Admit.

2. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for

the parties.

3. Present application preferred by the applicant for

quashing and setting aside the charge sheet No.29/2019 dated apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

24.06.2019 registered with Police Station Talegaon, District

Wardha for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338,

304(A) and 304 of the Indian Penal Code read with 184 and 187

of the Motor Vehicles Act in connection with Crime No.46/2014.

4. As per the contention of the applicant, he is a reputed

businessman, and running a travel business since long. The

crime is registered against him on the basis of a report lodged by

Police Officer Dinesh Zambre that applicant is the owner of BABA

travels and bus bearing No. MH-31-CQ-2779 is owned by him.

On the day of incident i.e. 29.05.2014, the co-accused driver of

the bus has driven its vehicle in rash and negligent manner, due

to which the bus has caught the fire and in the said incident

three passengers died on the spot, whereas 12 to 13 passengers

have sustained the injuries. On the basis of the said report,

police have registered the crime against the present applicant as

well as the other co-accused on an allegation that due to the

negligence on the part of the present applicant, as the bus was

not maintained in a proper condition, the bus has caught the fire

and death of three persons were caused. Whereas, 12 to 13

persons were injured when the bus was proceeding from

Malkapur to Nagpur.

5. After registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer

has recorded the statements of the witnesses, who were apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

travelling in the said bus. The statement of the RTO Officer is

also recorded and after completion of the investigation papers,

the charge sheet was submitted against the present applicant as

well as the other co-accused.

6. Heard learned counsel Mr. Abhay Sambre for the

applicant, who submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR shows

that the fire was due to unidentified reasons and not because of

the intention of misdoing at the hands of the present applicant.

It is further submitted that the applicant has as many as 25

buses and running on various roads. He submitted that it is

merely an accident, there is no negligence on the part of the

present applicant. The statements of the witnesses also nowhere

discloses any negligence on the part of the present applicant.

The fitness certificate was already issued to the bus which is

involved in the accident. The statement of the RTO Officer

namely, Jayant Macchindra More, recorded during the

investigation shows that he has inspected the vehicle and

thereafter issued the fitness certificate. In view of the said

statement of the RTO Officer, it is clear that there was no

negligence as far as the present applicant is concerned. In view

of that, the application deserves to be allowed.

7. Per contra leaned APP strongly opposed the said

contention and invited my attention towards the statements of apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

the various passengers which shows that the necessary

equipment were not kept in the bus in case of emergency. He

submitted that even the statement of Jayant Macchindra More,

who is the RTO Officer shows that as per the safety norms two

fire extinguisher requires to be kept in the AC Sleeper Coach.

One fire extinguisher requires to be kept in the driver's Cabin

and other on the back portion of the bus. He further submitted

that the entire maintenance is to be done by the owner of the

bus. Though the witness RTO Officer has stated about the

requirements, but his statement nowhere shows that all these

requirements were fulfilled by the present applicant. On the

contrary statements of the various passengers shows that there

was no fire extinguisher kept in the vehicle. The bus has caught

the fire due to the non-maintenance of the AC. In view of that,

the application deserves to be rejected. In support of his

contention he placed reliance on 1] Ravi Kapur Vs. State of

Rajasthan reported in 2012 AIR SC 2986, and 2]Criminal

Appeal No. 113/2016 [Yograj s/o Atmaram Rahangdale

Vs. The of Maharashtra] decided on 19.08.2023 and

submitted that considering the statement at the prima facie

stage, the offence is made out against the present applicant and

therefore, the application deserves to be rejected.

apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

8. On hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire

investigation papers, there is no dispute that three persons died

in an incident, whereas 12 to 13 persons have sustained the

injuries. It is also not disputed that as the bus MH-31-CQ-2779

has caught the fire and in the said incident, death of three

persons were caused. During the investigation, the Investigating

Officer has recorded the relevant statements of the witnesses

including the statements of the passengers. Admittedly, the

passengers have stated that there is a possibility of catching of

the fire by bus due to non-maintenance of the AC. The

statements of some passengers shows that the driver has kept

the vehicle in running though it was in a parking condition and

therefore, heat indicator caught the fire and due to which, the

bus was burnt. However, the statements of the witnesses shows

that the owner of the vehicle has not kept fire extinguisher in the

said vehicle. The statement of the RTO Officer Jayant Macchindra

More shows that as per the safety norms, the owner of the

vehicle requires to be kept two fire extinguisher, one in Cabin of

the driver and other in back portion of the bus and the vehicle is

to be inspected and thereafter, the fitness certificate is to be

issued. On perusal of the said statement, it further reveals that

the burden is on the owner of the vehicle to keep the vehicle in a

proper condition. It further shows that he has inspected the

vehicle and issued the fitness certificate. However, his apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

statement nowhere shows that while inspecting the vehicle, he

has observed that bus was maintained in a proper condition and

the fire extinguishers were kept in the said vehicle. Thus,

statement of the RTO as well as the statements of the various

witnesses shows that the safety implements were not kept in the

said vehicle.

9. As regard the applicability of Section 304 of the Indian

Penal Code, the said Section states that whoever commits

culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished

with [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall

also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is

done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such

bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or

with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that

it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause

death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

10. The plain reading of the above Section makes it clear that

Section 304 is divided into two parts which are referred as 304

Part I and 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

11. When Section 304-A was inserted in the Indian Penal

Code by Amendment Act 1870, it runs as causing death by

negligence. The said Section states, "whoever causes the death

of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting

to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of

either description for a term which may extend to two years, or

with fine, or with both."

12. Thus, there is distinction between Section 304 and

Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 304-A states about case where death is caused

by doing a rash or negligent act which does not amount to

culpable homicide not amounting to murder within the meaning

of Section 299 or culpable homicide amounting to murder within

the meaning of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 304-A deals with homicidal death by rash and

negligent act. Though the term negligence has not been defined

in the Indian Penal Code, it can be stated that the negligence is

the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided

by those considerations which ordinarily regulate conduct of

human affairs, would do, or doing something which a reasonable

and prudent man would not do.

13. Learned APP placed reliance of the decision of Ravi

Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) wherein the Hon'ble apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

Apex Court dealt with the terms negligence and observed in the

para No.11 as below:

11. 'Negligence' means omission to do something which a reasonable and prudent person guided by the considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable person guided by similar considerations would not do. Negligence is not an absolute term but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. It is difficult to state with precision any mathematically exact formula by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Whether there exists negligence per se or the course of conduct amounts to negligence will normally depend upon the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances which have to be taken into consideration by the Court.

In a given case, even not doing what one was ought to do can constitute negligence"

14. While considering whether there was negligence or not

the another parameter which requires to be taken into

consideration, whether the concerned person has taken a

reasonable care, the parameter 'reasonable care' while

considering the question of negligence is material. If imposes an

obligation or a duty upon a person to care and duty attains a

higher degree while performing the duty. For example, while

driving a vehicle on a public way, there is an implicit duty cast on

the drivers to see that their driving does not endanger the life of

the right users of the road, may be either vehicular users or apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

pedestrians. They are expected to take sufficient care to avoid

danger to others.

15. In view of Section 304-A a specific offence where death is

caused by doing a rash or negligent act and that act does not

amount to culpable homicide under Section 299 or murder under

Section 300. Doing an act with intent to kill a person or

knowledge that doing an act was likely to cause a person's death

is culpable homicide. Whereas the provision under Section 304-A

is not limited to rash or negligent driving but it includes any rash

or negligent rash whereby death of any person is caused

becomes punishable two elements either of which or both of

which may be proved to establish the guilt of an accused are

rashness/negligence; a person may cause death by a rash or

negligent act which may have nothing to do with driving at all.

16. With the above principles, what constitutes negligence

has been analysed in Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.),

Vol. 34, Para 1 (p. 3), as follows:

"1. General principles of the law of negligence.-- Negligence is a specific tort and in any given circumstances is the failure to exercise that care which the circumstances demand. What amounts to negligence depends on the facts of each particular case. It may consist in omitting to do something which ought to be done or in doing something which ought to be done either in a different manner or not at all. Where there is no duty to exercise care, negligence in the popular sense has no legal consequence. Where apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

there is a duty to exercise care, reasonable care must be taken to avoid acts or omissions which can be reasonably foreseen to be likely to cause physical injury to persons or property. The degree of care required in the particular case depends on the surrounding circumstances, and may vary according to the amount of the risk to be encountered and to the magnitude of the prospective injury. The duty of care is owed only to those persons who are in the area of foreseeable danger; the fact that the act of the defendant violated his duty of care to a third person does not enable the plaintiff who is also injured by the same act to claim unless he is also within the area of foreseeable danger. The same act or omission may accordingly in some circumstances involve liability as being negligent, although in other circumstances it will not do so. The material considerations are the absence of care which is on the part of the defendant owed to the plaintiff in the circumstances of the case and damage suffered by the plaintiff, together with a demonstrable relation of cause and effect between the two."

17. In the light of the above, if the negligence in the present

case is examined can be gathered from the attending

circumstances. As already observed that as per the statement of

the RTO Officer, the applicant who is the owner of the vehicle is

under obligation to keep the safety measures in the AC bus. The

statements of the witnesses admittedly shows that no fire

extinguishers were kept in the AC bus, and therefore, the fire

could not be controlled. The statement of the RTO though shows

that it is requirement, but it nowhere reflects that while

inspecting the vehicle, he has observed the compliance of the apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

said safety measures. In the light of the absence of the said

statement on the part of the RTO, the statements of the

witnesses who were travelling as passenger is relevant which

shows that there was no fire extinguishers in the said bus. As

well as the statements of the witnesses shows that the bus was

not maintained properly, and therefore, there is a possibility of

catching fire due to some defect in the AC. At this stage, the

said statements are taken into consideration, though fitness

certificate issued as to the bus involved in the said incident. But

considering the attaining circumstances that the bus has caught

the fire, the fire extinguishers were not kept in the bus which is a

requirement. There were no safety measures kept in the bus in

case of an untoward incident if happens. Thus, in cases were

negligence is the primary cause, it is to be taken into

consideration as far as the applicant is concerned, who is the

owner of the vehicle and was negligent and not verified whether

the safety measures were kept in the bus which is the

requirement. Due to the unfortunate incident, three persons lost

their lives and 12 to 13 persons have sustained burn injuries.

The said fact reveals from the statements of the various

witnesses, various possibilities are laid down as far as the

catching of the fire by the bus is concerned, but in the light of

the statement of the RTO, the obligation is on the owner to keep

the said safety measures which he had not kept and in the apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

absent of said safety measures, the passengers could not save

the life of the other passengers as well as some passengers

sustained the injuries.

18. Thus, applying the principles narrowed down, as far as

the negligence on the part of the present applicant is concerned,

at this stage, there is material against the applicant to attract the

offence against him. By applying the parameters laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and

others Vs Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp. (1)

SCC 335, which reads as under:

"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

apl.920.2019.Judgment.odt

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

19. The prima facie case is made out against the applicant

and therefore, the application for quashing of the FIR deserves to

be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

ORDER

The application is rejected.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

Sarkate.

Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/01/2026 14:52:01