Bombay High Court
SANJAY BHAILAL SHAHversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that FIR No. 928/2021 and the accompanying chargesheet were unsustainable and quashed them, granting relief to all petitioners.
Summary
A fire caused by a short circuit in a residential building on 06.11.2021 resulted in two deaths. The State of Maharashtra filed FIR No. 928/2021 against the architect, the building's society secretary and chairman, and the developers under IPC sections 336, 338, 304(2), 34 and the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act. The petitioners contended that the charges of culpable homicide (Section 299 IPC) were inappropriate, arguing at most criminal negligence (Section 304A IPC) and that the building had all requisite approvals, including an occupation certificate and fire NOC. The Court examined the lack of intent, the passage of seven years since construction, and the fact that the fire originated from a short circuit in a flat's doorbell, concluding that the FIR and chargesheet were unsustainable. Consequently, the Court allowed all four writ petitions, quashed FIR No. 928/2021, ordered the record of the case to be called, and directed the State to furnish a copy of the FIR.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 299 IPC versus Section 304A IPC in the fire incident.
- Whether the architect can be held liable for culpable homicide for design omissions.
- Whether the society secretary, chairman, or other office bearers can be criminally liable for the fire.
- Whether the builders can be held responsible for a fire occurring seven years after construction.
- The propriety of quashing FIR No. 928/2021 and the accompanying chargesheet.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 299, 304(2), 304A, 336, 338, 34
- Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measures Act, 2006 — s. 3(1), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4)
Subjects
- fire safety
- criminal negligence
- culpable homicide
- architect liability
- building regulations
- FIR quash
- IPC
- Maharashtra Fire Prevention Act
Judgment
19. CRI 1251-22+3.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1251 OF 2022
Sanjay Bhailal Shah .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 247 OF 2022
Tribhuvandas M. Rughani & Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 160 OF 2022
Jayesh Hiralal Shah (Chairman) & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1019 OF 2022
Babita Naraindas Gandhi .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Dr. Abhinav D. Chandrachud a/w Mr. Laxminarayan Shukla, Ms.
Pragya & Mr. Ameya Khot i/by M/s. Legal Vision, Advocates for
Petitioners in WP 1251/2022
Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria a/w Mr. Laxminarayan Shukla, Ms. Pragya
and Ms. Ameya Khot i/by M/s. Legal Vision, Advocates for
Petitioners in WP 1019/2022
Mr. Satish Agarwal (through VC), Advocate for Petitioners in WP
160/2022
Mr. Siddharth Singh i/by Mr. Ashok Saraogi, Advocate for
Petitioners in WP 247/2022
Ms. Rajeshree V. Newton, APP for State
Sonawane, PSI, Kandivali Police Station
1 of 7
19. CRI 1251-22+3.odt
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 20, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties as stated in
the appearance memo.
2. These are group of 4 Writ Petitions seeking quashing of FIR No.
928/2021 registered by Kandivali Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 336, 338, 304(2) and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the
Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety Measure Act, 2006.
3. All the above 4 Petitions are being decided together by this
common order as the facts involved therein are common.
4. Writ Petition No. 1251/2022 is filed by Architect – Sanjay B.
Shah represented by Advocate Dr. Chandrachud; Writ Petition No.
1019/22 is filed by Ms. Babita N. Gandhi – then Secretary of the Co-
operative Housing Society of the subject building represented by
Advocate Mr. Parsyranoyrua; Writ Petition No. 160/2022 is filed two
Petitioners i.e. then Chairman – Mr. Jayesh Shah and Mr. Nitin
Kachalia who is the current Chairman of the subject building
represented by Mr. Agarwal and Writ Petition No. 247/2022 is filed by
Mr. Tribhuvandas M. Rughani & 2 others – Developers / Builders who
2 of 7
19. CRI 1251-22+3.odt
had constructed the subject building. They are represented by
Advocate Mr. Singh, instructed by Mr. Saraogi.
5. Offences are registered in view of loss of two lives in a fire
incident which occurred on 14th and 15th floor of the subject building
on 06.11.2021. Admittedly there is no dispute about the fact that
subject building was constructed by the developers Tribhuvandas M.
Rughani and two others as also was designed by Architect Mr. Sanjay
Shah more than seven years ago before the date of incident and it had
all permissions in place including the occupation certificate, fire
report, fire NOC granted by Municipal Corporation.
6. Complainant in the present case is State of Maharashtra which
has in view of the loss of two lives in the fire incident filed the FIR.
Cause of the fire incident is that on the 14 th floor, there was a short
circuit in the door bell which led to the fire and consequently loss of
lives. Chargesheet which is filed holds the Petitioners responsible for
the offence of culpable homicide under Section 299 of IPC and
therefore in view of the loss of lives, Section 304 of IPC is invoked.
7. The arguments advanced by all the learned Advocates appearing
for Petitioners are noted by Court. They are in common and hence for
brevity they are not delineated separately herein under.
3 of 7
19. CRI 1251-22+3.odt
8. At the outset it is argued that at the highest there can be
invocation of the provisions of Section 304A of IPC subject being
proved for criminal negligence and in any event, application of Section
299 would be completely incongruous. It is argued that application of
Section 299 which is offence of culpable homicide with intention to
cause harm but in the present case insofar as present Petitioners are
concerned, there is no intention whatsoever which can be attributed to
them qua their role in the fire in the subject building so as to hold
them responsible for the loss of lives.
9. Architect – Mr. Sanjay Shah had designed the building much
prior to 2014 and pursuant to the same had duly obtained the
occupation certificate on 15.09.2014, copy of which is appended at
page No. 39. Copy of the fire report is appended at page No. 31 and
the fire NOC is appended at page No. 89. I have perused the same.
The only charge which is levied against the Architect is that under the
earlier approved plan, there was a gate which was shown and since in
the final sanctioned plan, gate was not there, there was difficulty for
the fire brigade to reach the concerned building and therefore the
Architect has been charged for culpable homicide. It is well settled
that when the buildings are planned, plans are amended repeatedly
time and again before they get finally approved and validated and
ultimately sanctioned. In the present case, it is not the case of
4 of 7
19. CRI 1251-22+3.odt
prosecution that the building is not have final sanctioned plan or is
unauthorized and the occupation certificate issued on 15.09.2014
prima facie justifies the fact that the concerned Planning Authority i.e.
Mumbai Municipal Corporation had duly inspected the building and
had approved the same for the purpose of residence.
10. Similarly role of the Secretary of the Society, though a thankless
job, under the provisions of MCS Act, he cannot be held responsible
for something which he is not directly responsible. Cause of action
for the fire to occur in the present case is the short circuit which had
occurred on the 14th floor door bell of a flat in the said building. If
the Secretary is to be held responsible for such incidents in respect of
electrical wiring of the door bell of a particular flat, this will lead to a
disastrous situation. It is incomprehensible to foist such liability on
the Secretary or Chairman or office bearers. In that view of the matter,
insofar as the then Secretary as also the present Secretary are
concerned, the invocation of provisions of Section 304A against them,
in my opinion, is once again completely innocuous, unsustainable and
cannot be countenanced in the present facts and circumstances of the
case.
11. Insofar as the builder is concerned, the builder steps in such a
situation only as a person who does business and builds houses. This
is not a case of the prosecution that the builder has constructed an
5 of 7
19. CRI 1251-22+3.odt
unauthorized building. He obtained occupation certificate for the
building and handed it over to the Society and Society was running
the same. In such a situation, how can the builder be implicated for a
short circuit in the electrical wiring after 7 years. In that view of the
matter, even in the present case, where there is a gap of more than
seven years after the building was handed over to the Society, no
criminal charge can be levied against the builder since the flats were
occupied by the members of the Society.
12. In view of the above observations and findings, all four Petitions
deserve to be allowed and are accordingly disposed in terms of prayer
clauses as stated in the respective Petitions as herein under:-
WRIT PETITION No. 1251/2022 stands allowed in terms of :-
"(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the records and
proceedings of this case from the Sr.P.I. of Kandivali Police
Station, Mumbai and after perusing the same, quash and to set
aside the FIR No.928 of 2021 registered under sections 336, 338,
304(2) and 34 of Indian Penal Code Read With Sections 3(1),
3(3) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety
Measures Act, 2006 by Kandivali Police Station against the
petitioner; a/w the chargesheet filed in FIR No.928 of 2021 a/w
Session Case No.693 of 2022 pending in the files of Additional
Sessions & Judge, Dindoshi.
WRIT PETITION No. 247/2022: stands allowed in terms of :-
"(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order
and direction directing the Respondents to forthwith furnish the
copy of the FIR in respect of FIR No. 928 of 2021 registered by
the Respondents registered under the provisions of Section 336,
338, 304(2), 34 of IPC r/w. Section 3(1), 3(3), 3(4) of
Maharashtra Fire Protection and Protection Act 2016 on such
terms as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.
6 of 7
19. CRI 1251-22+3.odt
b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order
and direction directing the quashing of FIR being FIR No.928 of
2021 registered by the Respondents registered under the
provisions of Section 336, 338, 304(2), 34 of IPC r/w. Section
3(1), 3(3), 3(4) of Maharashtra Fire Protection and Protection
Act 2016 as against the Petitioners on such terms as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper;
WRIT PETITION No. 160/2022 stands allowed in terms of :-
"(A) To call for the records and proceedings of this case from the Sr.P.I.
of the Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai and after persuading the
same, quash and to set aside, the said impugned Criminal
Proceeding, in F.I.R. No. 928/2021 dated 20.11.2021 of Kandivali
Police Station, Mumbai and Chargesheet filed before Hon’ble
City Session Court at Dindoshi in Criminal Case No.693/22 being
heard by the Hon'ble Trial Court;
(B) considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the
fabricated and malicious intentions of the Complainant, the FIR
No.928/2021 & Chargesheet may be kindly quashed and set
aside.
(C) That Hon’ble Court may be pleased to stay the proceeding against
Accused No.5 and 6 before the Hon’ble City Session Court at
Dindoshi at Goregaon at Mumbai in Criminal Case
No.693/2022.”
WRIT PETITION No. 1019/2022 stands allowed in terms of :-
"(b) To call for the records and proceedings of this case from the Sr.P.I.
of Kandivali Police Station, Mumbai and after perusing the same,
quash and to set aside the FIR No. 928 of 2021 registered under
sections 336, 338, 304(2) and 34 of Indian Penal Code Read With
Sections 3(1), 3(3) and 3(4) of Maharashtra Fire Prevention and
Life Safety Measures Act, 2006 by Kandivali Police Station against
the petitioner;"
13. All four Petitions are allowed and disposed.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by RAVINDRA
RAVINDRA MOHAN
AMBERKAR
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.08.20
20:08:56
+0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…