Quashing of FIR Permissible Where Allegations of Culpability in Accidental Death Lack Direct Evidence and Intent

On January 31, 2016, a student named Kartik Hardas (deceased) was part of a Kho-Kho team participating in a tournament.

While returning from a mall, Kartik was struck by an unknown speeding vehicle as he stepped off a road divider.

The Petitioner (deceased's father) alleged that the trainer (Applicant, Sumit Chavan) and others were responsible for the death and sought investigation for murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

Meanwhile, local police filed an ‘A’ Summary report (case true but undetected) regarding the unknown vehicle, which was accepted by the Magistrate on December 21, 2016.

The Applicant sought to quash C.R. No. I-250/2017 registered under Section 336 of the IPC and Section 75 of the POCSO Act, contending the incident was a pure accident.

1. Whether the death of the deceased was a result of criminal negligence or intentional acts by the Applicant/trainer, or a tragic road accident.

2. Whether the FIR against the Applicant under Section 336 of the IPC and Section 75 of the POCSO Act should be quashed.

The court examined the requirements for criminal liability under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), specifically Sections 279 (rash driving), 336 (act endangering life), 337, and 338.

Criminal culpability requires established mens rea (intent), motive, or gross negligence.

Section 75 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, regarding the punishment for cruelty to a child.

The Court analyzed witness statements from several fellow students who were present at the scene... these witnesses consistently stated that the students were holding hands while attempting to cross the road from a divider, and the deceased unfortunately stepped down into the path of a speeding vehicle.

The Court found no evidence of motive, intent, or mala fides attributable to the trainer or the other students.

It reasoned that the Applicant could not be held criminally liable for an "unfortunate episode" that was plainly a "tragic accidental death".

The Court further noted that the Magistrate had already accepted the ‘A’ Summary report regarding the untraceable vehicle, reinforcing that the death was accidental rather than homicidal.

The Court allowed Criminal Application No. 29 of 2018, quashing C.R. No. I-250/2017 for offences under Section 336 of the IPC and Section 75 of the POCSO Act.