Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against College Staff And Trustees After 14 Adult Students Drown At Murud Beach, Finding No Proximate Negligence

On 1 February 2016, Abeda Inamdar Senior College organised a picnic to Murud beach for 116 students and accompanying staff. Forty-one third-year students later entered the sea; 14 drowned.

Following an initial accidental-death inquiry, Murud Police registered FIR No. 24 of 2016 under Sections 304A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against college trustees and employees approximately 80 days after the incident.

The applicants sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The applicants included trustees and the in-charge Principal, staff who accompanied first- and second-year students, and staff who accompanied the third-year students.

Whether the FIR disclosed a prima facie offence under Section 304A IPC against the trustees, Principal and staff who accompanied the first- and second-year students, given their alleged lack of a direct or proximate role in the deaths.

Whether the staff accompanying the third-year students could be criminally liable under Section 304A IPC for the students’ drowning, having regard to the students’ age, the alleged omissions in supervision, and the requirement of gross negligence and direct causal connection.

Whether the State should take measures to improve safety at public beaches to prevent similar incidents.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where the allegations and material do not disclose an offence or continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process; the Court referred to the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

Section 304A IPC requires a rash or negligent act that is the direct and proximate, or causa causans, cause of death; criminal negligence must be gross or of a very high degree, beyond the negligence sufficient for civil liability, as explained in Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap, Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla v. State of Maharashtra and Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab.

The Court also considered M.S. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood on duty of care and vicarious liability, including the relevance of the relationship and course of employment, and Melvin Kumar v. K.S. Harisha concerning deaths at a swimming facility.

The Court distinguished the heightened supervision owed to minors from the supervision expected in this case, where the students were adults.

The Court found no material connecting the trustees and Principal with a specific negligent act that directly or proximately caused the deaths; their absence from the picnic was relevant to that conclusion.

It likewise found no basis to attribute negligence to staff accompanying first- and second-year students, who were supervising different groups.

As to the third-year students’ accompanying staff, the Court acknowledged that they had not gone with the students to the beach when the group revisited it, but concluded that the record did not establish a specific grossly negligent act with the necessary causal connection to the drownings.

It treated the students’ adulthood and their decision to enter the sea as material to the degree of supervision required, and characterised the deaths as an accident rather than the direct and proximate result of criminal negligence by the applicants.

Separately, the Court emphasised the need for public-beach warnings, lifeguards, rescue facilities and other safety measures.

It quashed and set aside FIR No. 24 of 2016 under Section 304A read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the State Chief Secretary and requested consideration of the beach-safety measures discussed in the judgment.