Full Judgment
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. The applicants have basically approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the First Information Report No.3 of 2012 and the consequent charge-sheet in Sessions Case No.150/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 201, 209 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offences punishable under Section 146 read with Section 196, Section 133 read with 187, Section 39(1), Section 61(1) read with Section 192(1) and Section 197 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
3. It appears that one student Virath Jhade who was the student of the Central India Public School, Kapsi (Khurd), Nagpur had died in an accident. As such on 9.1.2012 Crime No.3 of 2012 came to be registered by Hudkeshwar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the school bus bearing registration No.MH-31-CQ-2964. During the investigation, the owner of the said bus viz. Sk. Ismail, the contractor of the said bus viz. Suraj Padole and the present applicants in two applications, one of whom is the Director of the said School and the other one the Principal of the said School also came to be added as accused and the offence under Section 279, 304-A of the I.P.C. came to be converted into the aforesaid offences.
4. This Court in P.I.L. No.2 of 2012 had taken suo moto cognizance of the said incident and had issued various directions from time to time. This Court vide order dated 13.02.2012 had directed the Central Board of School Education (for short "CBSE") to take appropriate steps against the school management. Vide another order dated 29.03.2012, this Court had directed the CBSE to conduct an enquiry and submit a report to this Court. Accordingly the CBSE had conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to this Court. The said report was perused by this Court on 28.08.2013 and the following order came to be passed by this Court:-
"Insofar as the orders dated 13.2.2012 and 29.3.2012 are concerned, the respondent no.11 -C.B.S.E. has submitted report stating therein that the bus in question was neither owned by the School nor the school concerned had any role in providing said facility. It is stated that one Mr. Padole was plying the said bus and the contract was directly between said Mr. Padole and the parents of the children taking education. It is categorically stated in the report that in that view of the matter the C.B.S.E., cannot initiate any action against the school since the C.B.S.E., at that point of time neither prescribed any guidelines for operating school bus nor provided any punitive measures for any commission or omission. In that view of the matter, question of taking any action against the respondent no.10 does not arise."
5. It could thus be clearly seen from the report of the CBSE that the bus in which the deceased was travelling which was met with an accident was hired by one Mr. Padole and said Mr. Padole had directly entered into a contract with the parents of the children taking education. The CBSE has specifically stated that it could not initiate any action against the school since at that point of time the CBSE had neither prescribed any guidelines for operating school bus nor provided any punitive measures for any commission or omission. No doubt that on account of the various orders passed by this Court now the things are streamlined and stringent measures have been prescribed for school buses so that the safety of the children travelling in the said school bus is not in danger. Not only this but on account of the orders passed by this Court, the District Level Committee under the Chairmanship of the Education Officer of the respective districts and the School Level Committee have already been formed. However, it is clear that at the relevant time there were no guidelines or prescription prescribing the Management of the School to take any precautionary measures.
6. We are at pains to observe that as to how the provisions of Section 304 of the I.P.C. would be applicable to the facts of the present case. The said section deals with the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Even if for a moment the case under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. would be made out against the driver, it is difficult to appreciate as to how against the Director and Head Mistress of the School who had no control over the said bus, the provisions of Section 304 of the I.P.C. would be attracted. Similarly it is also difficult to understand as to how the provisions of Section 201 of the I.P.C. would be attracted which deals with the destroying the evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender.
7. Insofar as the offences under the Motor Vehicles Act are concerned, Section 146 deals with necessity for insurance against third party risk, Section 196 deals with driving uninsured vehicle, Section 133 deals with duty of owner of motor vehicle to give certain information, Section 187 deals with punishment for offences relating to accident, Section 39 deals with necessity for registration, Section 61 deals with the application of chapter to trailers, Section 192 deals with using vehicles without registration and Section 197 deals with the taking vehicle without authority. It is difficult to understand as to how even remotely the said sections would be applicable to a person who is neither the owner of the vehicle in question nor has any control over the same.
8. Neither the owner, nor the driver, nor the contractor are before this Court. One of the applicants is a Director of the School and the other one at the relevant time was the Head Mistress. We find that continuing prosecution against them for an offence of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder, is nothing else but an abuse of process of law.
9. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present applicants is not sustainable in law. Rule is, therefore, made absolute by quashing the First Information Report No.3/2012 and the consequential Sessions Trial No.150/2012 insofar as the present applicants are concerned.