IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.
Shah Rukh Khan S/o. Meer Taj Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & 1 other – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5404 of 2017 With CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2374 of 2017
Decided On : 27-04-2022
CRIMINAL - QUASHING OF COMPLAINT - SECTION 482 CRPC - SECTION 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 336, 337, 338 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 145, 150, 152, 154 AND 155(1)(A) OF THE RAILWAYS ACT, 1989 - ACT OF THE PETITIONER OF THROWING 'SMILEY BALLS' AND 'T-SHIRTS' IN THE CROWD AND WAVING AT THE CROWD - WHETHER THE ACT OF THE PETITIONER WAS SO RASH OR NEGLIGENT AS TO ENDANGER HUMAN LIFE OR PERSONAL SAFETY OR CAUSE HURT OR GRIEVOUS HURT - WHETHER THE ACT OF THE PETITIONER WAS THE PROXIMATE AND EFFICIENT CAUSE OF THE UNRULY INCIDENTS AT THE RAILWAY STATION - WHETHER THE COMPLAINT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lead actor in a movie, undertook an exercise of promotion of the movie by way of a train journey from Mumbai to Delhi. At Vadodara Railway Station, the petitioner threw 'smiley balls' and 'T-shirts' in the crowd and there was a scuffle over catching the same, which resulted in a stampede and some persons got injured and some became unconscious. It was alleged that on account of the chaos created on account of the negligent acts on part of the petitioner, one person had expired. The respondent no.2 had submitted a complaint to the Police Sub Inspector, Railway Police Station, Sayajiganj, Vadodara inter alia praying for registration of an FIR against the petitioner. The respondent no.2 upon receiving no response from the police authorities, had preferred a private complaint against the petitioner and others before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara. The petitioner approached the High Court inter alia challenging the impugned complaint and further challenging the report by the Investigating Officer as well as the order dated 11.07.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate issuing summons to the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the acts of the petitioner could not be termed as being of extreme high degree of negligence or recklessness nor could be the acts stated to be proximate or efficient cause for the alleged incident. The alleged incidents had happened as a result of culmination of many causes of which one of the causes may have been the act on part of the petitioner of having thrown 'smiley balls' and 'T shirts' in the crowd. The Court further held that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for quashing of the impugned complaint.
Issues: Whether the act of the petitioner was so rash or negligent as to endanger human life or personal safety or cause hurt or grievous hurt? Whether the act of the petitioner was the proximate and efficient cause of the unruly incidents at the railway station? Whether the complaint is liable to be quashed?
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the acts of the petitioner could not be termed as being of extreme high degree of negligence or recklessness nor could be the acts stated to be proximate or efficient cause for the alleged incident. The alleged incidents had happened as a result of culmination of many causes of which one of the causes may have been the act on part of the petitioner of having thrown 'smiley balls' and 'T shirts' in the crowd. The Court further held that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for quashing of the impugned complaint.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the impugned complaint and the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2022 for joining party was rejected.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Thakore with learned Advocate Mr. Salil Thakore on behalf of the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mitesh Amin on behalf of respondent – State, learned Advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh on behalf of respondent no.2- complainant and learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Kharadi for learned Advocate Mr. M.M. Madni in Criminal Misc. Application No. 1 of 2022.
2. By way of these petitions, the petitioner has sought for quashing Criminal Case No. 22663 of 2017 pending before the learned 11th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara and other proceedings incidental thereto.
3. The brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are enumerated as below:
The petitioner who was a lead Actor in a movie “ Raees”, prior to its release, had undertaken an exercise of promotion of the movie by way of a train journey from Mumbai to Delhi. As far as the present issue is concerned, the same relates to certain alleged incidents which had happened when the train had stopped at Vadodara Railway Station. That initially for the incidents at the Railway Station the respondent no.2, had submitted a complaint to the Police Sub Inspector, Railway Police Station, Sayajiganj, Vadodara inter alia praying for registration of an FIR against the petitioner. The respondent no.2 upon receiving no response from the police authorities, had preferred a private complaint against the petitioner and others before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara. The allegation in the compliant which came to be registered as Criminal Inquiry No. 218 of 2017 being that on 23.01.2017, the petitioner was travelling from Mumbai to Delhi in a train being August Kranti Rajdhani Express on 23.01.2017 for promotion of the movie referred to hereinabove without taking prior permission from the railway authorities. It is alleged that the train had stopped at Platform No. 6 at Vadodara Railway Station and whereas huge crowd of fans had gathered to see the petitioner. It is also alleged that the petitioner had thrown ‘smiley balls’ and ‘T- shirts’ in the crowd and there was a scuffle in the crowd over catching the same and on account of such scuffle, a stampede had ensued on account of which, some persons had got injured and some persons had become unconscious. It would be pertinent to state at this stage that the complaint inter alia further alleges that on account of the chaos created on account of the negligent acts on part of the petitioner, one person had expired. Thus alleging the impugned complaint, the complainant had sought for action to be taken against the present petitioner and two others for offences punishable under Sections 304(A), 427, 336 of the Indian Penal Code as well as offence punishable under Sections 145 and 147 of the Railways Act.
It appears that vide an order dated 02.03.2017, the learned 15th Additional Civil Judge, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara had noted that there was a police investigation also going on in respect of the same offence. Therefore, exercising powers under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”), the proceedings of the impugned complaint was stayed and the Investigating Officer conducting the inquiry was directed to submit a report within 45 days from the date of the order. It appears that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Western Railway, Vadodara had submitted Inquiry Report No. 64 of 2017 dated 17.04.2017 to the Superintendent of Police and whereas the said report had been placed before the learned Magistrate. It appears that pursuant to such a report, the learned Magistrate had after taking cognizance of the complaint against the present petitioner had issued summons to the petitioner under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for offences punishable under Sections 336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and for offences punishable under Sections 145, 150, 152, 154 and 155(1)(a) of the Railways Ac
Ambalal D Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1972 SC 1150
Fiona Shrikhande vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2013) 14 SCC 44
State of Gujarat vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta reported in (2019) 20 SCC 539
Ambalal D Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1972 SC 1150
R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866
Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab and another - reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1
Kurban Hussain Mohamedalli Bangawalla vs. State of Maharashtra
Section 147 read as Punishment for rioting.
High Court under Cr.P.C. Section 482 quashed FIR under Railways Act Section 153 against elected representative who only facilitated sewerage pipeline sanction near tracks, finding no wilful act or om....
Cognizance was taken beyond the statutory limitation and by an unauthorized complainant, rendering the criminal proceedings invalid under the Railways Act and Criminal Procedure Code.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.