NILESH UMESHBHAI MISTRI vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/22950/2015 (GJHC240509252015) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 22950 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL
==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
NILESH UMESHBHAI MISTRI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ANUJ H DAVE(8333) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
KSHITIJ M AMIN(7572) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED THRU CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the
Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 03/09/2026

JUDGMENT
1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
2. By way of this application, the applicant has invoked the
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, inter alia, praying for quashing and
setting aside the FIR being C.R. No. I-132/2015 registered with
Anandnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad on 07.09.2015 for the
offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC.
3. The FIR, in brief, is as follows:
3.1 My name is Shobhanaben, wife of Ashishbhai Tatya Saheb,
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:38:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/22950/2015 (GJHC240509252015) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
Caste: Bhola (Marathi), Age: 51, Occupation: Housework,
Resident of: 19/599, Krishnadham Awas, Part-2, Anandnagar,
Ahmedabad City.
3.2 Upon being questioned in person, I state and declare the
facts of my complaint as follows: I reside with my family at the
above address in the house of Kanubhai Desai. I do household
work and also earn my living by doing casual stitching work.
3.3 Today, when asked by you at the Anandnagar Police Station
regarding Accidental Death Inquiry No. 14/14 dated
15/09/2014, I state that my husband used to run a business
bringing flowers from the Jamalpur Flower Market and making
and selling retail flower garlands. Approximately a year ago
today, Nilesh Umeshbhai Mistry, residing at B/6, Shreenath
Apartment, near Vastrapur Crossing, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad,
used to take my husband Ashishbhai for electrical labor work.
He used to take him for 2-3 days.
3.4 On 15/09/2014, my husband left home at around 11:30 AM,
saying, "I am going to Jamalpur to get flowers." He did not return
home until late in the evening. At around 7:30 PM in the
evening, the aforementioned Nileshbhai called saying, "Your
father has suffered an electric shock," and told us to reach V.S.
Hospital. At that time, along with my two daughters, Hemangi
and Bhumi, when I went to V.S. Hospital, my husband was not
conscious, and at around 8:00 PM, the doctor declared him
dead.
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:38:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/22950/2015 (GJHC240509252015) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
3.5 At that time, we learned from Nileshbhai that because there
was electrical work at the residence of Nareshbhai Ramanlal
Shah, residing at B/23, Kirtisagar Apartment, near Prernatirth
Derasar, Jodhpur Village, Satellite, Nilesh and my husband went
there at 1:00 PM that afternoon. The electrical work was
assigned to my husband Ashishbhai, and around 7:00 PM in the
evening, while doing the electrical work at their house, he
suffered an electric shock and passed away.
3.6 Regarding this matter, despite knowing that my husband did
not know electrical work, Nileshbhai assigned him the electrical
work, failed to remain present with him, and showed negligence,
resulting in my husband's death. Therefore, I file a formal legal
complaint against Nileshbhai Mistry. My witnesses, police
investigation details, etc., are as found during the inquiry.
3.7 Thus, my complaint is recorded as stated and is correct and
true.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Anuj Dave for the applicant would
submit that no case under Section 304 of the IPC is made out
against the present applicant and that, in any event, the
allegations do not make out a case under Section 304A of the
IPC, which requires an act causing death by rash or negligent
conduct. Learned advocate further submits that no prima facie
case is made out against the present applicant under Section
304, more particularly Section 304 Part II, inasmuch as no
knowledge can be attributed to the present applicant that the act
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:38:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/22950/2015 (GJHC240509252015) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
done by the deceased was likely to cause death. There was no
intention on the part of the present applicant to cause death. He,
therefore, submits that the present application may be allowed.
5. Though served, none appears for the complainant.
6. Learned APP would submit that the charge-sheet has been
filed and that a prima facie case is made out against the present
applicant. He submits that despite having knowledge that
carrying out electrical work would be dangerous, the present
applicant got the work executed from a person having no
knowledge of electricity and in a casual manner, and thus,
knowledge is attributable to the present applicant. Learned APP
further submits that whether the act of the present applicant
falls within the ambit of Section 304 Part II or Section 304A of
the IPC can be decided at the stage of framing of charge. The
proceedings, therefore, ought not to be interfered with by
exercising the power to quash the FIR. He, therefore, submits
that the present application may be rejected.
7. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties and having
gone through the FIR and the material on record, the question
that falls for consideration before this Court is whether any case
is made out against the applicant under Section 304 of the IPC
or not.
8. The FIR is perused, what has been alleged is that, after
receiving phone calls from Nileshbhai, who is the present
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:38:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/22950/2015 (GJHC240509252015) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
applicant, informing the complainant that the deceased had
suffered an electrical shock, the complainant was asked to reach
V.S. Hospital. Upon reaching the hospital, she learnt from the
applicant that, while the deceased was working at the residence
of Nareshbhai Shah, he had suffered an electrical shock.
8.2 It is further alleged that on 15.09.2014, at about 1:00 p.m.,
the applicant, along with the deceased, namely, the husband of
the informant, went to the aforesaid residence, where electrical
work was assigned to the deceased, namely, Ashishbhai. At
around 7:00 p.m., while carrying out the electrical work at the
aforesaid residence, the deceased suffered an electrical shock
and passed away.
8.3 It is further alleged that, although the informant's husband
was not conversant with electrical work, the applicant had
assigned such work to him. It is alleged that the applicant failed
to remain present with them and that such negligence on the
part of the applicant resulted in the death of the informant's
husband.
8.4 The sequence would reveal, indisputably, that what has been
stated in the FIR is based on the statement of the accused. Be
that as it may, it is difficult for this Court to hold that the
applicant herein is liable to be prosecuted for the offence of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under
Section 304 of the IPC.
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:38:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/22950/2015 (GJHC240509252015) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
8.5 The ingredients constituting in offence under  Section 304
part-II of IPC are as follows:
(i) The person must commit culpable homicide not amounting
to murder.
(ii) The act must be done with the knowledge that it is likely
to cause death.
(iii) However, such an act must be done without any
intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death.
(iv) Culpable homicide is defined under Section 299 of the
IPC. To attract the provisions of Section 299, what is
important is that whoever causes death by doing an act with
the intention of causing death, or with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide.
(v) Thus, culpable homicide is the genus, whereas murder is
a species thereof. The cases enumerated as exceptions
under Section 300 of the IPC would not amount to murder,
but would fall within the category of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. Therefore, the acts falling within
Section 299, which do not fall within the definition of murder
under Section 300, would amount to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
8.6 Thus, what is important for committing the offence of
culpable homicide is that a positive act must be done by the doer
with the intention that such act would cause death or such
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:38:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/22950/2015 (GJHC240509252015) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge
that such act is likely to cause death. Therefore, the crucial
criterion for attracting the provision of culpable homicide is the
existence of intention or knowledge on the part of the doer.
8.7 As far as Section 304 Part II of the IPC is concerned, it is
attracted when a person commits culpable homicide not
amounting to murder with the knowledge that the act is likely to
cause death, but without any intention to cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Thus, the presence of
knowledge and the absence of intention are important aspects
while considering the basic ingredients for attracting Section 304
Part II of the IPC. To attract Section 304 Part II, the accused
must commit a positive act with the knowledge that it is likely to
cause death, but without the intention to cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Taking the FIR at its
face value, the applicant assigned work to the deceased and left
the premises. The charge-sheet papers reveal that the deceased
was not forced to carry out the electrical work. There is no
material to suggest that the applicant had the requisite intention
or absolute knowledge that assigning this labour would likely
result in death. Therefore, no prima facie case under Section 304
Part II IPC is established.
8.8 According to the case of the complainant, the present
applicant-accused had failed to take proper care and caution at
the place where the electrical work was being carried out, as a
result of which the deceased suffered an electric shock and
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:38:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/22950/2015 (GJHC240509252015) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
subsequently succumbed to his injuries. If the allegations in the
FIR are taken at their face value, this Court is of the opinion that
no prima facie case is made out for the offence under Section
304 Part II of the IPC. No intention on the part of the applicant
to cause the death of the deceased or to cause such bodily injury
as was likely to cause his death can be attributed to the
applicant. It also cannot be said that the applicant had
knowledge that asking the deceased to take the help of the
informant, namely, Ashishbhai, for electrical labour work was
likely to cause death.
9. From the papers of the charge-sheet placed for perusal by the
learned APP, it does not transpire from the record that the
deceased was forced to carry out the electrical work. However,
from the report of the Electrical Inspector, Ahmedabad, dated
26.11.2014, it transpires that, while replacing the electric board,
the deceased used a tool which came into contact with a live
wire, pursuant to which he sustained an electric shock and
succumbed to the same. Thus, it cannot be said that the
petitioner had knowledge that asking the deceased to carry out
the electrical work was likely to cause his death or such bodily
injury as was likely to cause his death.
10. The question as to whether the present applicant had acted
recklessly or negligently, and as to whether any harmful or
particular result from his act was foreseeable, as distinguished
from his actually intending such harmful result to follow, has to
be considered. If a prudent individual would not have acted in
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:38:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/22950/2015 (GJHC240509252015) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
the circumstances, having regard to the possibility of harmful
consequences, the applicant cannot be said to have acted with
recklessness or negligence.
11. Even from the statements and the papers forming part of the
charge-sheet, it would reveal that the accused also used to go
along with the present applicant sometimes. The deceased also
used to undertake plumbing work and colour work on a casual
basis.
12. Even so far as Section 304A of the IPC is concerned, though
the said provision has not been applied in the present case,
rashness or negligence on the part of the applicant punishable
under Section 304A is attributable to a state of mind where
criminality arises not merely because of an error of judgment,
but because of a conscious disregard of the consequences,
thereby risking the lives of persons who may lose their lives as a
result thereof.
13. Section 304A attracts criminal liability where death is
caused by a rash or negligent act. Under Section 304A,
criminality may arise apart from any mens rea; there may be no
motive or intention to cause death, and yet a person may commit
such a rash or negligent act as may cause death. The fact that
death has been caused is not, by itself, the determining factor.
14. Although Section 304A was not initially applied, the Court
must examine if the facts warrant this lesser charge. Section
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:38:18 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/22950/2015 (GJHC240509252015) JUDGMENT DATED:
03/09/2026
304A requires culpable or gross rashness or negligence.
Criminality under this section arises from a conscious disregard
for consequences, not merely from an error of judgment or
simple civil negligence. Crucially, the report of the Electrical
Inspector, Ahmedabad, dated 26.11.2014, clearly states that the
deceased sustained the fatal shock because a tool he was using
came into contact with a live wire while he was replacing an
electric board. This demonstrates an independent, intervening
act by the deceased. Because a higher degree of negligence is
required to attract criminal liability under Section 304A, mere
negligence on the part of the applicant (leaving an unskilled
worker unattended) without a direct, proximate causal link to
the death does not fulfill the strict requirements of this section.
Thus, criminal liability under Section 304A of the IPC arises only
in cases of culpable rashness or negligence, and not mere
rashness or negligence. A higher degree of negligence is required
to attract criminal liability. Accordingly, mere negligence, even if
proved, would not by itself attract Section 304A of the IPC.
Therefore, no case under Section 304A of the IPC is made out.
15. In the result, the present application is allowed. The FIR
being C.R. No. I-132/2015 registered with Anandnagar Police
Station, Ahmedabad and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MOHD SAIF ULLAH
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by MOHD SAIF ULLAH(HC02372) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:38:18 IST 2026