Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A Division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne on Tuesday dismissed a PIL which sought additional charges against the accused in the Cyrus Mistry Death Case.

The bench noted that charges were yet to be framed in the case and that there was no public interest involved in the PIL. The bench said that the PIL was without substance or merit and dismissed it with costs.

The division bench noted that the petitioner did not have knowledge of the facts of the case and that the petition in court should be substantiated with facts. The court said, 

"It appears that the petitioner without a substantive knowledge of the facts has presented this PIL. The Court relies on the pleadings. Even the statements about drunk driving of the accused are not supported by any evidence on record. When a petition is to be filed in court it has to be substantiated by facts. Especially in PILs."

In September 2022, Cyrus Mistry and Jehagir Pandole died in a car accident while Darius Pandole and Anahita Pandole survived the accident.

The PIL plea stated that the vehicle was having Anti-Lock braking system which allows the driver to compress the brakes and steer the vehicle out of the obstruction range however as the driving person was still in a stupor of alcohol and was over speeding she crashed the vehicle in the protruding shoulder of the wall of the NH48 highway.

"It was not an error of judgment on her part therefore her culpability is proved for Section 304, part II to be attracted in the facts of the present case," the plea argued.

Further while arguing from the engineering point of view, the plea stated:

“From an engineering point of view Respondent no.7's braking pressure applied when she saw the protruding L shoulder on the highway, it was only 10% out of 100% which shows that she did not put the brakes at higher pressure which could have averted the collision. The ABS system would have enabled her to steer the vehicle after applying standard brake pressure which would have averted the collision.”

The plea stated that Anahita was busy on phone till 11 PM and also had 7 traffic signal challans pertaining to over speeding and jumping signals. The petitioner also prayed that Darius Pandole should also be charged with Section 304 of the IPC as he was the owner of the car and was aware of the drinking habits of Anahita Pandole.