Bombay High Court
PRAMOD NIVRUTTI GHUGEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- ASHWIN D BHOBE
Holding
The petitioner, lacking the requisite knowledge and intent, cannot be held liable under Section 105 or the other charged offences, and the FIR and charge‑sheet against him are quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, General Manager of Rebel Foods Pvt. Ltd., sought to quash an FIR and charge‑sheet filed under Sections 105, 125(a), 125(b), 288, 289 and 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from the death of a worker during repair of an air‑conditioner by an independent contractor. The petitioner argued that he merely outsourced the repair work and had no knowledge or intention that the act would cause death, and that the contractor alone controlled the work. The court examined the statutory ingredients of Section 105, emphasizing that liability requires knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, absent any such knowledge in the petitioner’s case. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court precedents interpreting knowledge and intention for culpable homicide, the court held that the petitioner could not be held liable for the offences charged. Consequently, the FIR and charge‑sheet against the petitioner were quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether the General Manager of Rebel Foods Pvt. Ltd. can be held liable under Section 105 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for the death of a worker during repair work performed by an independent contractor.
- Whether the ingredients of Sections 125(a), 125(b), 288, 289 and 324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are made out against the petitioner.
- Whether the FIR and charge‑sheet filed against the petitioner should be quashed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 528
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 105, 125(a), 125(b), 288, 289, 324(5)
Subjects
- criminal liability
- corporate officer
- Section 105
- quash FIR
- Section 528
- negligence
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- knowledge and intention
- outsourcing
Judgment
WP-1065-2026-JT.DOC
Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2026.06.22
19:54:24 +0530
Meena/lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1065 OF 2026
Mr. PRAMOD NIVRUTTI GHUGE
Age – 45 years, Occ – Service,
(Authorised representative of
Rebel Food Pvt. Ltd.),
Having its Corporate Office at
2nd Floor, Der Deutsche Park,
Bhandup (W), Mumbai 400078. … PETITIONER
Versus.
State of Maharashtra …RESPONDENT
(Through Mahim Police Station)
Mr Siddhesh Bhole, Ms. Nehal Desale, Mr. Abhishek Bandre
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs Rajashree V. Newton, Additional Public Prosecutor for
Respondent State.
PSI A. A. Deshpande, Mahim Police Station, present.
-------
CORAM: ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Reserved on : 8th MAY 2026
Pronounced on: 22nd JUNE 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Mr. Siddhesh Bhole for the Petitioner and Mrs.
Rajashree Newton, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent – State.
Page 1 of 8
WP-1065-2026-JT.DOC
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of
parties, heard finally.
3. This Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (“BNSS 2023”), is filed by the Petitioner to quash the FIR
bearing Crime No. I – 0282/2025 dated 13.06.2025 (“impugned
FIR”), registered with Mahim Police Station, Mumbai, for offences
punishable under Sections 105, 125(a), 125(b), 288, 289 and
324(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS 2023”) and
the charge-sheet arising from the impugned FIR, which is now
registered as Sessions Case No. 1345 of 2025, pending on the file
of the 10th Sessions Judge, Mumbai (“Sessions Court”).
4. The facts relevant to the adjudication of the present Petition
are that on 13.06.2025, between 16.00 and 18.00, the air-
conditioner installed inside “Cloud Kitchen”, owned by M/s Rebel
Foods Pvt Ltd., located at Plot No. 38, Veer Savarkar Marg, Mahim,
Mumbai, was not working due to a gas leak in the air-conditioner.
The owners of Rebel Foods Pvt. Ltd. engaged Ashok Naik,
proprietor of “M/S Crystal Aircon”, for the repair of the air-
conditioner. Ashok Naik, deployed his workers, namely Noor Alam
Ahmed Ali Sheikh, Pravin Kumar Pujari, Mukesh B. Gupta and
Shivmohan Pal, for the repair of the air-conditioner, without any
safety equipment. While the repair work on the air-conditioner was
in progress, the compressor exploded, causing the death of the
worker Noor Alam Ahmed Ali Sheikh and the other workers
Page 2 of 8
WP-1065-2026-JT.DOC
sustained numerous injuries.
5. The impugned FIR was registered on the complaint lodged
by Police Constable Vikas A. Mali. Ashok Naik (Proprietor of M/s
Crystal Aircon) is Accused no. 1, whereas the Petitioner, the
General Manager of Rebel Foods Pvt. Ltd., has been arrayed as
Accused no. 2 in the impugned FIR.
6. Mr. Sidhesh Bhole, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
submits that Rebel Foods Pvt. Ltd., under a contract, entrusted the
air-conditioning repair and maintenance work to Accused No. 1.
He submits that the allegation against the Petitioner, namely, his
implication in the present crime, is that as the General Manager,
he awarded the contract for air-conditioner repair work to Accused
No. 1. He submits that the entire work of the air-conditioner was
the responsibility of the Accused no.1. He submits that Accused
No. 1 was responsible and liable for the acts of commission and
omission during the said work. He submits that the ingredients for
the commission of an offence under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023
are absent in respect of the Petitioner. He submits that the
allegations of commission of offences under the sections charged in
the impugned FIR are against Accused No. 1. He therefore submits
that no criminal liability can be fastened on the Petitioner for the
acts of Accused No. 1, if any.
7. Mrs. Rajashree Newton, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the Respondent-State, submits that the ingredients
of Section 105 of the BNS, 2023, are made out against the
Page 3 of 8
WP-1065-2026-JT.DOC
Petitioner. She submits that although the allegations against the
Petitioner are that he engaged the services of Accused no. 1, the
Petitioner cannot shirk his responsibility to ensure that the air-
conditioner repair work undertaken by Accused no. 1 was carried
out with due care and caution.
8. Rival contentions now come up for consideration.
9. The records in this Petition show that Accused No. 1, an
independent entity with exclusive control over its employees and a
specialist in air-conditioning repair and maintenance, was
entrusted with such work. The role assigned to the Petitioner in
the present crime was to outsource the air-conditioning work to
Accused No. 1, on behalf of Rebel Foods Pvt. Ltd as the General
Manager. No allegations have been made against the Petitioner
that the Petitioner was required to supervise the air-conditioning
repair and maintenance work, nor is there any material showing
that the Petitioner had any technical knowledge or expertise to
supervise such repair work, which forms part of the contract given
to Accused No.1.
10. To attract Section 105 of the BNS, 2023, the doer must have
knowledge that the act performed is likely to cause death or to
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death but without any
intention to cause death.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Yuvraj Laxmilal
Page 4 of 8
WP-1065-2026-JT.DOC
Kanther and Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra 1, in paragraph 12, has
held as follows:-
“12. We have noted above that the appellants have been
charged for committing offence under Section 304 Part II IPC
read with Section 34 IPC. Since Section 34 IPC covers
common intention, the substantive charge against the
appellants is under Section 304 Part II IPC which reads as
under:
Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder - Whoever commits culpable homicide not
amounting to murder shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years or with fine or with both, if the
act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
death; but without any intention to cause death or to
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
12.1. The ingredients constituting an offence under Section
304 Part II IPC are as follows:
(i) he must commit culpable homicide not
amounting to murder;
(ii) the act must be done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause death;
(iii) but such act is done without any intention
to cause death or to cause such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death.
12.2. Therefore, the first important expression is 'culpable
homicide not amounting to murder'. Culpable homicide is
defined in Section 299 IPC. It says that whoever causes
death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by
such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 520
Page 5 of 8
WP-1065-2026-JT.DOC
12.3. All culpable homicides are murders except in the cases
excepted under Section 300 IPC. Thus, except the cases
specifically exempted under Section 300 IPC, all other acts
within the meaning of Section 299 IPC would amount to
committing the offence of culpable homicide. However,
what is important to note is that for committing the offence
of culpable homicide, a positive act must be done by the
doer with the intention that such act would cause death or
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or he
having the knowledge that by such an act, death may be
caused. What, therefore, is significant is that the doer of the
act must have the intention of causing death or the intention
of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or
has the knowledge that by doing such an act he is likely to
cause death. Therefore, to commit the offence of culpable
homicide, intention or knowledge is of crucial importance.
12.4. Coming back to Section 304 Part II IPC, we find that
the said section would be attracted if anyone commits
culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the act is
done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but
without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death. Therefore, the requirement
of Section 304 Part II IPC is that the doer must have the
knowledge that the act performed is likely to cause death or
to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death but
without any intention to cause death. Thus, the basic
ingredient of Section 304 Part II IPC is presence of
knowledge and absence of intention. The doer must have
the knowledge that the act performed by him would likely
cause death etc but there should not be any intention to
cause death.”
12. In the case of Pavneet Singh Sethi & Ors. v/s. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors.2, in paragraph 10, this Court has held as
follows:-
“10. Thus, it is clear that commission of the offence, of
culpable homicide under Section 304(II) IPC require some
positive act on the part of the accused as distinguished from
2 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9108
Page 6 of 8
WP-1065-2026-JT.DOC
silence, inaction or mere lapses. The allegations of not
carrying out the repair of the road cannot, thus, make out a
case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
punishable under Section 304(II) IPC. Such statements of
positive act are conspicuously absent in the FIR filed in the
present case. Conversely, the cause of accident is clearly
attributed in the FIR itself to the rash and negligent driving of
the truck, in a fast speed.”
13. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court , the essential
ingredient of Section 105 of BNS 2023 is the presence of
knowledge and the absence of intention. Petitioner is a signatory
to the contract executed with Accused No.1. No case is made out to
attract the offence under Section 105 of BNS 2023 against
Petitioner.
14. Similarly, neither the impugned FIR nor the material
collected pursuant to its registration, taken at face value, make out
the ingredients of 125(a), 125(b), 288, 289 and 324(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, against the Petitioner.
15. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, this is a fit case to
exercise powers under Section 528 in view of the guidelines laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Ors.
v/s. Bhajan Lal and Ors.3, to prevent the abuse of justice.
16. This Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clause
(B). Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Consequently,
the impugned FIR and the charge-sheet arising therefrom are
quashed and set aside qua the Petitioner.
3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Page 7 of 8
WP-1065-2026-JT.DOC
17. Criminal Writ Petition No.1065 of 2026 is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Page 8 of 8
Checking your session…