Bombay High Court
SANJAY S/O. BHUJANGRAO KSHIRSAGARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- RULE DISCHARGED
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the death was deemed accidental and no negligence on the part of MSEDCL employees was established.
Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay, filed a criminal writ petition seeking a direction to the police to investigate and register an offence against employees of MSEDCL, alleging that their negligence in leaving a live electric wire caused the death of his son Shreyas. The petitioner claimed that Shreyas suffered a fatal electric shock while attending a Shivjayanti rally and that the police had failed to act on his complaints. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor, submitted a police communication stating that Shreyas died accidentally while attempting to fix a banner, and that a binding wire he was using touched a high‑tension line, with no negligence on the part of MSEDCL employees. The court examined the police report and the panchnama, finding no evidence of culpable negligence and concluding that the death was accidental. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition and discharged the rule, refusing to order any investigation or charge‑sheet against the MSEDCL employees.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate duty of the police under criminal procedure when a death is alleged to result from alleged negligence of a utility employee?
- Whether the facts as recorded by the police establish a prima facie case of negligence warranting registration of an FIR against MSEDCL employees.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ directing the police to investigate and file a charge‑sheet in the present circumstances.
Subjects
- criminal writ petition
- negligence
- accidental death
- investigation
- FIR
- MSEDCL
- police duty
- electric shock
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40195-DB
1 Cri. W. P. No. 342-2020.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
19 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 342 OF 2020
SANJAY S/O. BHUJANGRAO KSHIRSAGAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Adv. Amol R. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Petitioner
Adv. A. S. Shinde, APP for Respondents-State 1 to 4 and 7.
Adv. S. V. Mundhe, Advocate for Respondent No. 6
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 31/08/2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 02/09/2026
Order (PER : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally at the
admission stage.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought direction to
respondent No. 2 to 4, who are the police officials at Aurangabad, to
conduct the investigation and register the offence against
respondent No. 5 to 7, who are the employees of MSEDCL, who are
allegedly responsible for death of his son Shreyas @ Aditya and also
to file charge-sheet after registration of the offence.
2 Cri. W. P. No. 342-2020.odt
3. According to the petitioner, his son Shreyas had gone to see
the rally of Shivjayanti on 19/02/2019 from the top of Corporation
Building, where the construction was going on. When he, along
with other children was enjoying the Shivjayanti celebration, he got
an electric shock due to live electric wire dropped negligently by the
employees of respondent Nos. 5 to 7. He sustained grievous injuries
and therefore referred to Ghati Hospital, Aurangabad. Thereafter, on
the basis of the MLC report, the CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad
inquired into the said MLC No. 92 of 2019. However, after recording
his statement, Shreyas died on 09.03.2019.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Shreyas
had died only because of the negligent approach of employees of
respondent Nos. 5 to 7, since they negligently kept the live electric
wire on the ground. He further pointed out that the petitioner
thereafter, lodged various complaints dated 11.03.2019 and
19.12.2019 for taking cognizance of the same by the police, but
nothing was done pursuant to his complaints. According to the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the statement recorded by the
deceased clearly indicated that how a live electric wire was laid on
the ground negligently by the employees of the respondent No.5 to
3 Cri. W. P. No. 342-2020.odt
7. Thus, he prayed for granting the aforesaid reliefs.
5. On the contrary, the learned APP has placed on record
communication dated 31.08.2026, mentioning that how the son of
the petitioner i.e. Shreyas got electrocuted accidentally. Further, he
pointed out that the son of petitioner was himself responsible for
the incident, as he and his friends had gone there. The
communication dated 31.08.2026 clearly indicates that the
Panchnama was carried out by the concerned Police Station and
binding wire was also found on the spot, which was seized.
Moreover, on making an inquiry, it was revealed that Shreyas was
trying to fix a banner to the wall with the help of binding wire, but
while attempting to do so, the binding wire from his hand touched
to the high-tension wire of MSEDCL, which was situated at the
distance of 5 to 6 feet. Thus, on inquiry, it was found that the son
of the petitioner died accidentally and there was no negligence of
the employees of respondent Nos. 5 to 7. The learned APP even
placed on record the copies of the police papers regarding the
Accidental Death No. 20 of 2019 in respect of the son of the
petitioner. It is important to note that the said report has been
accepted by the ACP, CIDCO Division.
4 Cri. W. P. No. 342-2020.odt
6. Thus, nothing suspicious is found in those papers
regarding the said death. As such, the Criminal Writ Petition
stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.)
shivani/
Checking your session…