MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday asked a person how he had any right to be heard after he filed a PIL seeking invocation of the grave charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder against Dr Anahita Pandole for the death of Cyrus Mistry, a former Tata Sons executive chairperson, last year in a road crash.
The police filed a chargesheet in the case on January 4 and invoked the bailable offence of death due to rash and negligent act, which attracts up to two years' imprisonment under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, among other offences, including under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The maximum punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder is 10 years in jail if it can be proved that the person had the knowledge that an action can cause death.
"How are you concerned with this matter and what is your locus standi (right to be heard)? 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," said a Bombay high court bench of acting Chief Justice S V Gangapurwala and Justice S V Marne.
One Santosh Jedhe filed the PIL claiming to be a public spirited person and alleging a delay of two months in lodging of first information report (FIR) by the Palghar police, sought a more serious section to be invoked.
On September 4, 2022, Cyrus Mistry and Jehangir Pandole, who were in the rear seat, died in an accident while Dr Pandole, who was in the driver's seat, and her husband Darius, sitting next to her, survived with serious injuries.
Senior counsel Aabad Ponda, for Anahita Pandole, submitted that the PIL appears to be premised on the fanciful belief that she was not in control and that she was not tested by the police, which is not the case.
For the state, chief public prosecutor Aruna Pai submitted that tests were conducted and were "negative". "The test results were clear, alcohol was not found," she said.
The PIL also sought, among other things, that the HC monitor and supervise the probe into the accident. Advocate Sadiq Ali, for the petitioner, said there were many vehicular accidents and the probe ought to be fair with proper sections invoked.
Senior counsel Rafiq Dada, for another respondent, said there has to be a stop to such a campaign. There were a large number of vehicular accidents, why was the PIL picking only this case, he asked.
The HC posted the matter to January 17, after the petitioner sought to amend the PIL and challenge the chargesheet.
Stay updated with the latest news on Times of India. Don't miss daily games like Crossword, Sudoku, and Mini Crossword.