Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kaushalendra Singh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 February, 2025
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7918
1 MCRC-44359-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 13th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 44359 of 2023
KAUSHALENDRA SINGH RAGHUVANSHI AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare - Sr. Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma - Advocates for
petitioners.
Shri L.A.S Baghel - Govt. Advocate for respondent-State.
Shri Vivek Tankha - Sr. Advocate with Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta through
video conferencing with Shri Shubhashish Shrivastava & Shri Lokesh
Bhatnagar - Advocates for respondent No.2.
ORDER
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
challenging order dated 18.08.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge
Bareli District-Raisen in Criminal Revision No.19/2023 and an order
dated 21.06.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Bareli
District-Raisen in Rregular Criminal Trial No.27/2023.
2. Judicial Magistrate First Class Bareli District-Raisen passed an
order dated 24.01.2023 by which Directors of School i.e. Kaushlendra
Singh Raghuwanshi, Dharmendra Singh Thakur, Dilip Dhariwal,
Mukesh Kumar Choudhary and one Radheyshyam Dhakad were
summoned in Court. Said order was challenged in Criminal Revision
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7918
2 MCRC-44359-2023
No.4/2023 before Session Judge Bareli District-Raisen by petitioners.
Revisional Court by its order dated 22.05.2023 set aside impugned order
dated 24.01.2023. Case was remanded back before Judicial Magistrate
First Class to take cognizance of offences in accordance with Section
190 of Cr.P.C and to comply with provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
After remand, Judicial Magistrate First Class passed order dated
21.06.2023 and took cognizance of offence under Section 304(II) of IPC
& Section 180, 190(1) read with Section 199 of Motor Vehicle Act.
Bailable warrants were issued against petitioners and case was fixed for
appearance of said accused before the Court and for committal
proceedings. Police Station Bareli was directed to serve copies of
challan on petitioners. Said order of Judicial Magistrate dated
21.06.2023 was challenged before revisional Court. Revisional Court in
Criminal Revision No.19/2023 vide its order dated 18.08.2023 dismissed
criminal revision. It was held that names of petitioners were mentioned
in FIR which was lodged on date of incident. Judicial Magistrate has
passed detailed well reasoned order. Judicial Magistrate is not bound to
take cognizance of offences only against persons which were mentioned
in First Information Report. Final charge-sheet was not filed against
Directors of the School who were prima-facie accused of the case. No
error has been committed by Judicial Magistrate in passing the order.
Case is pending at stage of committal. Applicants in revision are free to
raise all arguments in committal proceedings or at the time to framing of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7918
3 MCRC-44359-2023
charges. Aforesaid orders passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class and
Revisional Court are under challenge in this petition filed under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that
complaint was made by one Veer Singh Thakur on 19.10.2022 at about
02.00PM. His seven years old son got down from school bus bearing
no.MP-04-PA-0168. When he was crossing the road from front of the
bus, driver moved the bus forward and deceased came under front tires
and was killed. Driver ran away from spot. Directors of school were
Kaushlendra Singh Raghuwanshi, Dharmendra Singh Thakur, Dilip
Dhariwal, Mukesh Kumar Choudhary and Radheyshyam Dhakad. They
were grossly negligent towards their work and did not provide proper
facility for picking and dropping of children. Operator In-charge of the
bus namely Sudama Sharma was also negligent. There was no cleaner,
conductor in the bus. Bus was not fit to be plied and driver was in hurry.
Bus was seized by Police. Main accused was driver-Deepak Rajak who
was arrested on 20.10.2022. As documents for plying the vehicle was not
produced, therefore, offence under Section 56/192, 146/196, 3/181 of
Motor Vehicle Act were also added. Charge-sheet filed against Deepak
Rajak and co-accused Sudama Sharma for committing offences under
Section 304 of IPC, 56/192, 146/196, 3/181, 212, 177 of Motor Vehicle
Act. Petitioners were made accused in the case and Judicial Magistrate
before committal of case thought it proper to hear petitioners, therefore,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7918
4 MCRC-44359-2023
summons were issued. Said order issuing summons dated 24.1.2023 was
challenged before Revisional Court. Said order was set-aside and matter
was remanded back with directions. Meanwhile, petitioners filed an
application for grant of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that High Court
vide order dated 14.07.2023, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners,
who are directors of the school and also to owner of the land, over
which, school building was constructed.
4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that no
offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC and offences under
Sections 3/181, 146/196, 56/192, 212 and 177 of Motor Vehicle Act are
made out against petitioners. Petitioners were mechanically impleaded in
the case. They do not have any role in the accident which took place on
19.10.2022. Daffodil School is found by the society namely Daffodil
Education Welfare Society Samiti. It has not been mentioned that they
are members and directors of said society. Petitioners do not have any
role in school functioning. Principal and other staff members have been
appointed for running of school. Offence is committed by driver and not
by petitioners. No automatic vicarious liability can be fixed on
petitioners in absence of specific allegations against them. There was no
mens rea on part of petitioners. One Sudama Sharma-co-accused in the
case was appointed on 01.06.2021 to supervise operation of school
buses. He is the person responsible for the same and by no stretch of
imagination, directors who do not have any role in supervising of buses
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7918
5 MCRC-44359-2023
can be held vicariously liable for the act of driver and manager. In these
circumstances, prayer is made to set-aside the impugned order passed in
Criminal Revision No.19/2023 dated 21.06.2023.
5 . Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that trial
Court as well as revisional Court has considered the documents and
circumstances which are available in the case. Reliance is also placed on
judgment passed by Apex Court in the case of M.C.Mehta Vs. Union of
India reported in (1998) 1 SCC 676. It is submitted that guidelines have
been laid down for running of school buses in said case. Petitioners who
were directors of the school were operating the bus in violation of said
guidelines. They were responsible for engaging the staff for running the
bus. They were grossly negligent in not engaging conductor and
engaging a driver who was not having valid driving license. Fitness of
bus was also not available. Despite that plying of bus was permitted by
petitioners. They were grossly negligent by their conduct and they abeted
the offence which is said to have been committed by driver and manager
of the bus. Some of guidelines are quoted as under :
(5) The need for safety of school children travelling in buses
requires that such buses be fitted with doors that can be shut.
We, therefore, direct that on or after 31-1-1998, no bus shall
be used by an educational institution unless it is fitted with
doors which can be closed. No educational institutions shall,
after the said date, use a bus if it has an open door.
(6) Similarly, it is essential that, in addition to a driver, there
is another qualified person in the bus who can attend to the
children travelling in the bus. Rule 17 of the Motor Vehicles
Rules, 1993 stipulates qualifications, duties and functions of a
conductor. It would be in the interest of safety to require the
presence of a qualified conductor on board every bus that is
being used by an educational institution. We are told that at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7918
6 MCRC-44359-2023
present there is a paucity of trained conductors. We, therefore,
direct that on or after 30-4-1998, no bus used by or in the
service of an educational institution shall be permitted to
operate without a qualified conductor being present at all
times.
7) We are also informed that some schools have voluntarily a
requested the parents of their wards to accompany the buses
so as to ensure that the drivers drive safely and the lives of the
children are not put in jeopardy. We commend this action, and
direct the Education Department to ask all schools including
government and municipal schools to evolve a similar
arrangement as far as possible, so as to ensure that in each bus
there is at least one parent present who would be b able to
oversee the conduct of the driver. This step would go a long
way in ensuring that the directions given as well as other
safety measures prescribed are complied with in letter and
spirit and that the driver drives carefully.
(10) We direct the Police Commissioner to frame appropriate
guidelines for regulating processions religious, political or
otherwise which tend to obstruct the flow of traffic. These
guidelines should be in conformity with the rights of the users
of the roads and the exercise of fundamental freedom of other
citizens indicated by this Court in its judgment in Communist
Party of India (M) v. Bharat Kumar.
(12) x x x
(i) x x x
(ii) In para A(f), the sentence commencing "no bus" and
ending with "educational institution" shall stand substituted
with the following:
"No bus belonging to or hired by an educational institution
shall be driven by a driver who has-
(a) less than five years of experience of driving heavy
vehicles;
(b) been challaned more than twice in a year in respect of
offences of jumping red lights, improper or obstructive
parking, violating the stop line, violating the rule requiring
driving within the bus lane, violating restricting the
overtaking, allowing unauthorised person to drive;
(c) been challaned/charged even once for the offence of over-
speeding, drunken-driving and driving dangerously or for the
offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the
Indian Penal Code.
All such drivers would be dressed in a distinctive uniform and
all such buses shall carry a suitable inscription to indicate that
they are in the duty of an educational institution."
Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 further placed
reliance on judgment passed in the case of Nahar Singh Vs. State of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7918
7 MCRC-44359-2023
Uttar Pradesh reported in (2022) 5 SCC 295. Relevant paragraph of said
judgment is quoted as under:
"Held -If the Magistrate disagrees with the police report, he
may act on the basis of a protest petition that may be filed and
commit the case to the Court of Session - This power of the
Magistrate is not exercisable only in respect of persons whose
names appear in Column (2) of the charge-sheet, apart from
those who are arraigned as accused in the police report- in
case of availability of materials before the Magistrate showing
complicity of persons other than those arraigned as accused or
names in Column (2) of the police report in commission of an
offence, the Magistrate at that stage could summon such
persons as well upon taking cognizance of the offence."
It is submitted that there is illegal omission on part of directors
with knowledge that accident or some other untoward incident may take
place, therefore, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by
Judicial Magistrate in summoning the accused persons. It is also argued
before this Court that a small boy aged about seven years was run over
by a bus, which was being run contrary to Motor Vehicle Act. Conductor
was not there and driver was not having valid license. Said vehicle is
being plied with knowledge of directors. They were grossly negligent in
their duty, therefore, offence under Section 304 of IPC will be made out
against them also.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties.
7. On the date of accident, driver was present on spot. He moved
the vehicle when a small boy was crossing the road from front of the
bus. It was duty of driver to take care and see that after dropping
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7918
8 MCRC-44359-2023
students, they crossed the road properly or they are in company of their
guardians. Necessary care is to be taken by driver. In this case, driver
had acted negligently and driving the bus without taking care in respect
of small child, who was crossing the road would amount to knowledge
that his act may likely cause death. In view of same, offence under
Section 304 of IPC is made out against driver-Deepak Rajak. Operation
of the bus is to be done by Operational Manager i.e. Sudama Sharma. He
was engaged for operating school buses. He was in effective control over
supervision of buses. He is also responsible for his negligent act and
conduct. Bus was not properly managed and supervised on the date of
accident. Driver was not having valid and effective driving license.
There was no conductor. Instructions were also not given to driver
properly. It was the role of Operation Manager-Sudama Sharma to take
care of all eventualities which may arise during operation of buses,
therefore, he is criminally liable for the act which was committed by
driver on the date of accident. Only evidence which is available against
petitioners is for engaging Sudama Sharma for management of school
buses. Petitioners do not have any direct role over supervision of buses.
Day to day functioning of school is to be seen by Principal of the
School. Directors can only be held liable when society is held liable for
particular duty, which was neglected by it. For brining petitioners within
ambit of Section 107 of IPC, prosecution has to show that petitioners
have intentionally aided or by an act of illegal omission had aided doing
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7918
9 MCRC-44359-2023
of that thing. In this case, there may be illegal omission not to check
driver, condition of buses and worthiness of busses to be brought on
road. Bus was also without conductor. However, no mens rea or
intention can be attributed on part of petitioners to have aided the act.
Petitioners will be liable for abetment under Section 107 and 304 of IPC,
if they intentionally aided by an act or by illegal omission for doing of
that thing. There is no proximate connection of directors with the cause
of accident. Mens rea and intention aid or illegal omission for doing of
that thing is found missing in the charge-sheet, therefore, they cannot be
held criminally liable vicariously for the act of the driver. Petitioners can
also not be held guilty under Section 34 of IPC as they were not
particeps criminis and there was not meeting of minds of directors with
driver for doing of a thing. Since, petitioners are not proximately
connected with the negligent driver of the bus, therefore, negligence on
part of petitioners to oversee proper running of bus will not make them
criminally liable for act of driver. Incident was unfortunate and a small
boy aged about seven years died.
8 . Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted
that strict action is also to be taken against directors and any person, who
is connected with said incident. This is necessary to check repetition of
such incident.
9 . Court has full sympathy with parents and relatives of the
deceased young boy but despite sympathy towards them, a person, who
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:7918
10 MCRC-44359-2023
is not connected in any way with the act and in absence of direct or
indirect evidence, directors cannot be held criminally liable for the act of
Driver and Operational Manager. There is no intentional, illegal
omission by Directors of the society, which led to unfortunate accident
of a small boy. They cannot be brought within ambit of abetment of
offence committed by Driver and Operation Manager. Petition filed
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed. Impugned orders
dated 18.08.2023 passed by Additional Session Judge Bareli District-
Raisen in Criminal Revision No.19/2023 and order dated 21.06.2023
passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class Bareli District-Raisen in
Regular Criminal Trial No.27/2023 are quashed.
10. With aforesaid, petition stands allowed.
11. Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
nd
