Cyrus Mistry case: HC junks PIL on culpable homicide charge, calls it 'publicity interest litigation'

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking inclusion of culpable homicide charges against gynaecologist Anahita Pandole, who was driving the car that crashed and killed former Tata Sons chairman Cyrus Mistry last year, noting it had been filed for publicity and the petitioner was not even remotely connected to the case. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice S V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne also imposed cost on the petitioner, Sandesh Jedhe, who claims to be an activist, and noted his PIL seemed to be a "publicity interest litigation and not for public interest at all". "Charges are to be framed (in the case), charge-sheet is already filed (by the prosecution). We do not see any public interest involved in the PIL (public interest litigation). We find the present PIL to be without substance or merits or cause. We dismiss with costs," the bench said. The court has not specified the fine amount yet and would include it in the detailed order expected later. The city-based petitioner had sought directions to the Maharashtra police to incorporate section 304 II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), instead of section 304A (causing death by negligence), of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Anahita Pandole.

Section 304A provides for a maximum punishment of two years, while Section 304 II entails a jail term of up to 10 years.

Mistry (54) and his friend Jehangir Pandole were killed on September 4 when their luxury car hit a divider on a bridge on the Surya river on the Mumbai-Ahmedabad highway in adjoining Palghar district. Anahita Pandole (55), who was at the wheel, and her husband Darius Pandole, who was also travelling in the vehicle, were seriously injured. The police later registered a case against Anahita Pandole for rash and negligent driving.


Advocate Sadiq Ali, who represented Jedhe, claimed Anahita Pandole was under the influence of alcohol while driving the Mercedes-Benz car. He referred to a "forensic report" which allegedly indicated Anahita Pandole was under the influence of alcohol as she had been consuming alcohol at a cafe till late the previous night (of September 4) before she drove the vehicle carrying Mistry and others. When the bench sought to know from where this information was procured, Ali said it was from a confidential source. "It appears that the petitioner without a substantive knowledge of the facts has presented this PIL. When petition is filed, pleadings are on oath, they cannot be casual and wanton pleadings. The court relies on the pleadings. Even the statements about drunk driving of accused are not supported by any evidence on record. When a petition is to be filed in court it has to be substantiated by facts. Especially in PILs," the bench observed. The HC added the petitioner was unaware of the facts in the case and was not even remotely connected to the matter.