Cyrus Mistry’s death: HC questions grounds of filing PIL against Pandole

The PIL disputed the charges levelled by Palghar police against Dr Anahita Pandole and stated that she should be booked under more stringent charges.

Mumbai: The Bombay high court, on Tuesday, directed a petitioner – who filed a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a proper investigation into the death of businessman Cyrus Mistry – to explain the grounds for filing the PIL.

On September 4, 2022, Cyrus, Jehangir, Anahit and Darius were returning from Gujarat in a Mercedes Benz car when Anahita – who was at the wheel – crashed into a divider along the Charoti Bridge over Surya River. While Mistry died on the spot, Jehangir succumbed to his injuries later, both were seated in the rear seats. Anahita and her husband Darius were seated in the front seats and suffered severe injuries. (HT PHOTO)

The PIL disputed the charges levelled by Palghar police against Dr Anahita Pandole and stated that she should be booked under more stringent charges. Currently, Pandole has been booked under section 304 A of the Indian Penal Code (for causing death by negligence). However, the PIL seeks an application of charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for having caused death due to her rash and negligent driving and also naming her husband Darius Pandole as an accused in the case.

The division bench while hearing the PIL by Santosh Jedhe was informed by advocates Sadiq Ali and Aditya Navpute that though the car crash which killed Mistry and Jehangir took place on September 4, 2022, the FIR was registered by the Palghar police on November 5, 2022.

The PIL stated that the charges applied against Anahita under sections 279 (rash driving), 304-A (causing death by negligence) and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the IPC were insufficient and hence there was a need for a court-monitored probe. The petition alleged that as Anahita had consumed alcohol the previous night and Darius – the owner of the ill-fated vehicle – was aware of it, hence he should be added as an accused as well for abetment.

On September 4, 2022, Cyrus, Jehangir, Anahit and Darius were returning from Gujarat in a Mercedes Benz car when Anahita – who was at the wheel – crashed into a divider along the Charoti Bridge over Surya River. While Mistry died on the spot, Jehangir succumbed to his injuries later, both were seated in the rear seats. Anahita and her husband Darius were seated in the front seats and suffered severe injuries.

Jedhe in his petition has sought a direction to obtain call data records to ascertain whether Anahita was present at cafe Panama in Lower Parel on September 3, 2022, at 11 pm where she consumed liquor and also sought the CCTV footage of the restaurant. He has also sought directions from the central and state governments to formulate guidelines for the safety of passengers in case of dangerous and drunk driving.

Senior advocate Rafique Dada, appearing for Darius, however, sought dismissal of the PIL. “This campaign must end now. The petitioner has said there are over one lakh deaths in vehicular accidents. Then why pick only this case?”

Senior advocate Aabad Ponda for Anahita also questioned the PIL and stated that it was filed on the premise that she was drunk and no test was taken. However, that was not the case.

Chief public prosecutor Aruna Pai, appearing for the state government and the police, confirmed that tests were conducted and they were negative.

After hearing the submissions, the bench questioned Jedhe. “How are you concerned with this matter and what is your locus standi? How can all this be considered in a PIL as to which section has to be incorporated? If the magistrate feels that additional sections are required, he will add the same.”

The bench further sought to know whether Jedhe was asking the bench to do the work of a magistrate. “The police may file under whatever provisions and the magistrate will take care of it,” remarked the bench.

After the petitioner sought time to amend the PIL to challenge the chargesheet, the bench allowed him to do so and adjourned the hearing to January 17.