Criminal Negligence Not Attributable to College Trustees for Unforeseeable Drowning, Rules Bombay High Court

  • Post published:
  • Post category:Bombay High Court
  • Reading time:4 mins read

Criminal Negligence Not Attributable to College Trustees for Unforeseeable Drowning, Rules Bombay High Court in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra

Case: P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:42978-DB
Date of Judgment: 22 October 2026
Court: Bombay High Court
Coram: Justice Milind N. Jadhav
Proceedings: Criminal Application Nos. 493, 568, 569, 975 of 2016 (under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973)

Court Observation

“The applicants cannot be held criminally negligent for an unforeseeable event occurring beyond their direct control or operational purview.”

Summary

The Bombay High Court has quashed FIR No. 24 of 2016, registered with the Murud police station in Raigad district, against the trustees, in-charge principal, faculty and staff of the Abeda Inamdar Senior College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Pune. The FIR, registered under Sections 304A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, followed the drowning of 14 students at Murud beach on 1 February 2016, during a college picnic attended by 116 persons.

The Court held that the causa causans of the deaths was accidental drowning and not any proximate rash or negligent act attributable to the college authorities. Finding no material to establish a gross or high degree of negligence, the Court ruled that the ingredients of Section 304A of the IPC were not attracted and that vicarious criminal liability could not be fastened on the trustees, principal or teachers. It noted that the students were adults aged 18 and above at a public beach, exercising their own judgment.

Key Holdings

  • The drowning of the students was an accidental event; the proximate cause was the undercurrent that swept away 41 third-year students who had ventured into the sea, not any rash or negligent act by the college authorities.
  • The ingredients of Section 304A of the IPC were not attracted in the absence of material establishing a gross or high degree of negligence on the part of the applicants.
  • Criminal liability under Section 34 of the IPC cannot be fastened vicariously on trustees, the principal, or teachers without individual culpable conduct.
  • Adult students at a public beach exercise their own judgment; the law does not prosecute family members or organisers when an adult drowns during an outing.

Directions Issued

  • The State of Maharashtra, through the Ministry of Tourism, shall draft and implement a uniform beach-safety policy, including bilingual (English and Marathi) warning signages with high-tide timings, deployment of lifeguards, watchtowers, protective grills, demarcated safe swimming zones, red flags during high tide, patrolling vans, and lifeguard training.
  • A copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the Chief Secretary of the State, observing that there cannot be a knee-jerk reaction after every mishap.

Background

On 1 February 2016, 14 students of the Abeda Inamdar Senior College, run by the Maharashtra Cosmopolitan Education Society, drowned at Murud beach during a college picnic. Following an accidental-death enquiry, an FIR was registered about 80 days later against 17 persons, including trustees and staff. The college authorities moved the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking quashing. The complainant, the father of one of the deceased students, contended that the staff were grossly negligent and were in a hotel about 500 metres away at the time. The Court found no mens rea or proximate negligence and quashed the FIR in a 37-page judgment.

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.

Related Articles