Cyrus Mistry Death: PIL before Bombay High Court for fair probe

A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the non-inclusion of criminal charges under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), dealing with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, against the accused in the Cyrus Mistry death case [Sandesh Shivaji Jedhe v. Union of India]..After a brief hearing, the Court agreed to give the petitioner time till January 17 to gather more material to support his case. The petitioner raised grievance over the police only charging the accused with Section 304A of the IPC, which deals with causing death by negligence. "There have to be more charges," advocate Sadiq Ali argued for the petitioner today..The bench of acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne, however, raised eyebrows over whether the petitioner could approach the High Court on such aspects. "This is a job of a Magistrate. It is he who can decide what charges to put. You want us to do [functions of] of Magistrate ... What is your locus? How are you concerned in this case?", the Court queried."I am a public-spirited individual," Ali replied, prompting the Court to orally observe that there were more deserving causes for PILs to be filed."You can prosecute cause for hospital, endangering of lives of citizens around you, you can seek PIL. The police may add any charges, but it is for the Magistrate to consider that," the Court said..Ali, however, insisted that he had evidence that the driver of the vehicle carrying Mistry, among others, was under the influence of alcohol. In his petition, the petitioner referred to CCTV footage allegedly indicating that Anahita Pandole had been consuming liquor at a café late on the previous night before she drove the vehicle carrying Mistry, among others. "I have evidence that the driver was under influence of alcohol," the petitioner told the Court today. ."This campaign must now end. Let him go to the Magistrate," submitted Senior Advocate Rafique Dada in response, while appearing for Darius Pandole, husband of Ananhita Pandole, the sole accused in the accident case.Appearing for Anahita, Senior Advocate Abad Ponda added, "It is premised on the imagination that she was under alcohol. There were tests conducted."Chief Public Prosecutor Aruna Pai, appearing for State clarified that "the tests were negative.""He is himself saying that there have been multiple deaths and then why is he targeting this case only," the respondent's counsel further argued."I have procured documents. Grant me time to get back on this," the petitioner urged the Court..While the Court was reluctant at first, it granted Ali a last chance to make any application for amending the petition if required. Accordingly, the petition was adjourned to January 17. .In September last year, Cyrus Mistry and Jehangir Pandole passed away after the car in which they were travelling got into a fatal accident. Anahita and Darius Pandole survived the accident.The petitioner alleged that Anahita Pandole was under the influence of alcohol while she was driving the car carrying her husband Darius Pandole and Cyrus Mistry, Jehangir Pandole. .The petitioner quoted equations from Newton's Equation of motion to allege that Anahita Pandole only used 10% of the brake power that could have been potentially used to stop the over-speeding vehicle and the collision itself. "0.088g is the deceleration in 3.5 to 0 seconds, which is 10% of the brake power that she could have used," the petition said. .It was further submitted that the Mercedes vehicle in question had an Anti-Lock Braking System that could have allowed the driver to steer the vehicle while putting the brakes. "As she was under the influence of alcohol and without enough rest she drove the car from Ahmedabad to Mumbai she was not stable enough to drive, hence failed to put the brakes at high-pressure and put her life along with the lives of co-passengers at risk. The repercussions of the collision would not have been so severe if the Respondent No. 7 [Anahita Pandole] would have not failed to apply the brakes with pressure [sic].".The petitioner also said that Darius Pandole should also be charged with the offence under Section 304, IPC alongside Anahita Pandole as he was the owner of the vehicle and since he did not prevent Anahita from driving the vehicle despite allegedly being aware of "her drinking habits" and that she was "up late" drinking liquor on September 3, 2022. The petition was drawn, drafted and settled by advocate Aditya S Navpute.