Cyrus Mistry car accident: Bombay HC questions petitioner seeking court-monitored probe

At 3.15 pm on September 4 last year, four people were travelling in a car along the Charoti Bridge over Surya River towards Mumbai from Gujarat’s Ahmedabad. Mistry and Jahangir Binshah Pandole, who were seated in the rear seats, died in the accident, while Darius Pandole and his wife Dr Anahita seated in the front seats suffered severe injuries.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing a plea by one Santosh Shivaji Jedhe who claimed to be a “public spirited” person and alleged that the FIR was filed by the Palghar police on November 5, 2022, with a delay of nearly two months since the accident.

He said Anahita Pandole was charged with offences punishable under Sections 279 (rash driving), 304-A (causing death by negligence) and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the IPC and other provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and added that the same are insufficient.

The petition also sought directions to the central and state governments to formulate guidelines for the safety of vehicular passengers in case of dangerous and drunk driving.

The direction is also sought to obtain Call Data Records of Pandole to find if Anahita Pandole was present at Cafe Panama in Lower Parel on September 3, 2022 at 11 pm and consumed liquor and also obtain CCTV footage from the said restaurant.

The PIL also sought from the High Court to monitor and supervise the probe into the accident among other prayers.

Jedhe, through advocates Sadiq Ali and Aditya Navpute, submitted that there were many deaths due to vehicular accidents and a fair probe is required and Pandole should be charged with the offence of culpable homicide.

Senior advocate Rafique Dada, appearing for one of the respondents, said, “This campaign must end now. The petitioner has said there are over one lakh deaths in vehicular accidents. Then why pick only this case?”

Senior advocate Aabad Ponda for the accused in the FIR said that the PIL is premised on the imagination that Anahita Pandole was under control and that she was not tested for the same, which is not the case.

Chief Public Prosecutor Aruna S Pai, appearing for the state government and the police, submitted that the tests were conducted and they were negative. “The test results were clear, alcohol was not found,” Pai said.

The bench questioned Jedhe, “How are you concerned with this matter and what is your locus standi (legal standing)? How can all this be considered in a PIL as to which section has to be incorporated? If the magistrate feels that additional sections are required, it will be added. Everything under the sun does not have to be in a PIL.”

It went on to say, “You can seek relief through PIL when a hospital is not functioning, endangering the lives of citizens or certain construction is not moving forward etc. But how can you be concerned as far as this matter is concerned? You are asking the court to do the work of a magistrate. The police may file under whatever provisions and the magistrate will take care of it.”

After the petitioner sought to amend the plea to challenge the recently filed chargesheet, the bench allowed him to do so and posted the matter for further hearing to January 17.