After Six Die In Rajaji Safari-Vehicle Crash, Uttarakhand HC Quashes Case Against EV Firm Directors, Finding No Specific Culpable Act

The applicants were directors of Pravaig Dynamics Private Limited, which supplied a prototype electric safari vehicle for trial and evaluation at Rajaji Tiger Reserve. On 8 January 2024, the vehicle was involved in an accident during a trial run, causing six deaths.

The prosecution alleged, among other matters, that the vehicle was overloaded, accelerated during the run, lacked certain safety features, and was operated without adequate training. The applicants maintained that they were not present or involved in the trial and that no specific negligent act or instruction was attributed to them. The investigating agency filed a charge-sheet under Sections 279, 304-A and 338 IPC; the Magistrate summoned the applicants. They sought quashing of the charge-sheet, summoning order and consequential proceedings under Section 528 BNSS.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Sections 279, 304-A and 338 IPC require the prosecution to establish the elements of the respective offences, including the requisite rashness or negligence; under Section 304-A, the accused’s rash or negligent act must be the direct and proximate cause of death.

Criminal liability is personal: a director’s position alone does not establish liability, and, absent a statutory provision imposing vicarious criminal liability, the prosecution must disclose the individual’s involvement and culpable conduct. The Court relied on Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609; Keki Hormusji Gharda v. Mehervan Rustom Irani, (2009) 6 SCC 475; and Shiv Kumar Jatia v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 17 SCC 193.

It also relied on Brahm Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2009) 7 SCC 353, concerning the need to establish rashness or negligence.

Although a court issuing process does not conduct a mini-trial, the investigation material must disclose an offence and sufficient grounds to proceed.

The Court considered the allegations of overloading, acceleration, deficient safety features and inadequate driver training, but found that they did not, without more, establish the applicants’ individual criminal culpability. The material did not show that either applicant instructed the driver to overload or accelerate the vehicle, was present at the scene, or exercised operational control during the trial.

The driver-cum-engineer was the person operating the vehicle, while the prosecution material, as presented, did not sufficiently connect either applicant’s specific act or omission to the accident as its proximate cause. The applicants’ directorships could not substitute for that evidentiary link. Even accepting the prosecution material at face value, the Court found the necessary basis to proceed against them absent.

It allowed the application and quashed the charge-sheet dated 2 May 2024, the summoning order dated 22 November 2024, and the consequential proceedings in Criminal Case No. 792 of 2024, insofar as they concerned the applicants. The Court clarified that its observations would not prejudice proceedings against the other accused.