Gujarat high court quashes petition against Shah Rukh Khan in 2017 stampede case

The Gujarat high court noted that Shah Rukh Khan was promoting his movie on the railway station, after having obtained permission to do so from the authorities concerned.

AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat high court on Wednesday quashed a petition against Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan that was filed in 2017 in connection with a stampede at Vadodara railway station during the promotion of his film ‘Raees’ in which one person died and several others were injured and fell unconscious.

One person died and several others were injured in a stampede at Vadodara railway station during the promotion of Shah Rukh Khan’s film ‘Raees’ in 2017. (Waseem Gashroo/HT File Photo)

“The petitioner was promoting his movie on the railway station, after having obtained permission to do so from the authorities concerned. Neither could the acts of the petitioner be termed as being of extreme high degree of negligence or recklessness nor could the acts stated to be proximate or efficient cause for the alleged incident,” the court said in an oral order.

The alleged incidents happened as a result of culmination of many causes of which one of the causes may have been the act on part of the petitioner of having thrown ‘smiley balls’ and ‘T shirts’ in the crowd, it said.

That as noted hereinabove, out of thousands of persons present in the Railway Station on the date of the incident including police personnel and railway staff, none of the persons who might have been injured on account of the incident or even witnessed the incident had complained about the same, it added.

The court also noted in its order that the petition has been filed by a person who has no direct connection with the incident in question.

Following the stampede of 2017, Congress leader Jitendra Solanki filed a complaint against the actor. A local court in Vadodara issued summons to the film star asking him to remain present. Shah Rukh Khan moved the high court against the summons and for quashing the complaint.

“This court is also required to consider that whether it would be fair and justifiable for ordinary citizens of the place, where the trial against the petitioner might be held if the impugned complaint is not quashed, who would have to suffer inconvenience on account of the petitioner being required to attend the trial with regard to a complaint, which has been filed by a person who has no direct connection with the incident in question,” the court order said.