Delhi High Court
Mohd. Imran vs The State Gnctd on 4 August, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 04.08.2025
+ CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 & CRL.M.A. 33901/2024
MOHD. IMRAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shamim A. Khan,
Advocate
versus
THE STATE GNCTD .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,
APP for the State, with
Inspector Vinay.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
Introduction
1. A heart-wrenching tragedy unfolded in the early hours of
08.12.2019, when a massive fire broke out in the densely populated
Anaj Mandi area of Sadar Bazar, Delhi, which claimed the lives of 45
innocent individuals. Most of the victims were labourers who had
been asleep, unaware of the impending catastrophe. The scale and
horror of the incident shook the conscience of the city and led to an
investigation into the circumstances that allowed such a disaster to
occur.
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 1 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
2. In connection with the said incident, the petitioner, Mohd.
Imran, is one of the several persons arrayed as accused. He has
approached this Court by way of the present petition, assailing the
order dated 12.09.2024 [hereafter „impugned order‟] passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
[hereafter „Sessions Court‟] in SC No. 226/2020, arising out of FIR
No. 204/2019, registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar, Delhi for
offences punishable under Sections 304/308 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 [hereafter „IPC‟].
3. By way of the impugned order, the learned Sessions Court was
pleased to frame charges against the petitioner for offence under
Sections 304 (Part II)/308/35/36 of IPC, and alternatively, under
Sections 304A/337/338/35/36 of IPC.
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has sought his discharge,
primarily on the ground that – he did not own or exercise control over
the specific floor of the building, where the alleged short circuit is
stated to have occurred, which ultimately had triggered the fire
resulting in the loss of lives.
5. Accordingly, the issue to be adjudicated by this Court is
whether the petitioner‟s plea for discharge is merited, at the stage of
framing of charge.
6. It would first be appropriate to briefly recount the events,
tragic as they were, that led to the registration of the FIR and take
note of the findings of the investigation carried out in this case.
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 2 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
The morning that turned fatal for many
7. On 08.12.2019, at around 5:22 AM, a PCR call was received at
Police Station Sadar Bazar, recorded vide DD No. 6A, reporting a fire
at House No. 22742, Anaj Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The caller, had
conveyed in panic: “Ghar mein aag lagi hai. Injured koi hai ya nahi,
abhi tak nahi pata lag raha hai.” The information was immediately
marked to SI Sandeep, who rushed to the location. Upon reaching the
area, it was discovered that the actual site of the incident was House
No. 8273, Anaj Mandi, where the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors of the
building were found engulfed in flames. Realising the gravity of the
situation, additional police personnel were called to the spot.
Simultaneously, 25 fire tenders, along with teams from the NDRF,
Civil Defence, Disaster Management Authority, BSES, and CATS
ambulances, arrived and launched a large-scale rescue and
firefighting operation. The Mobile Crime Team (North District) and
the FSL team from Rohini were also summoned for scene inspection.
All those injured or unconscious were immediately shifted to nearby
hospitals for urgent medical treatment.
8. The blaze was brought under control after approximately 3.5
hours of relentless firefighting efforts. However, the damage had
already been done, and a total of 45 persons, including 9 minors, had
tragically lost their lives due to burn injuries and suffocation. Further,
21 persons, including 6 minors, had been left injured.
9. Initially, the case was registered and investigated by the local
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 3 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
police at P.S. Sadar Bazar. However, given the seriousness and
complexity of the matter, the investigation was later transferred to the
Crime Branch on the directions of senior officers, who thereafter took
over the inquiry.
Findings of the Investigation and Submissions of the State
10. The investigation revealed that Property No. 8274 was
interconnected with Property No. 8273 – from the ground floor up to
the fifth floor – functioning effectively as a single composite
structure. The building was jointly owned by three accused persons:
the present petitioner, Mohd. Imran, who was found to be in
occupation of a major portion of Property No. 8273, where the fire
originated; Mohd. Rehan, who occupied the majority of Property No.
8274; and Sohail, who was in possession of various other portions in
both properties.
11. The investigation further uncovered that the interconnected
buildings comprised multiple large rooms on each floor, which were
sub-let by the accused persons to various contractors. These
contractors, without any licenses or authorization, had established
illegal manufacturing units inside the premises, employing labourers
(many of them minors from Bihar) in violation of safety laws and
zoning regulations. Activities conducted in these units included the
production of mirror frame moldings, jackets, bags, caps, diaries, and
tiffin covers.
12. The investigation revealed that these operations were being
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 4 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
carried out in blatant disregard of the law, with profit placed above
human safety, resulting in severe overcrowding and dangerously
unsafe working conditions. Although two staircases existed in the
building, only one was accessible at the time of the incident; the other
had been obstructed by large quantities of raw materials, which had
also hampered evacuation and rescue efforts. Further, it was found
that multiple power connections were being used in the premises for
operating heavy-duty industrial machinery, even though the
connections were commercial in nature and not sanctioned for
industrial use. This pointed towards unauthorised and fraudulent
usage of electricity within the premises.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) appearing for
the State argued that as per the expert opinion from the Physics
Department of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), the probable
cause of fire was an electric shock. It was submitted that 3D imaging
of the building showed its height to be approximately 18 metres,
exceeding the permissible limit of 15 metres for structures located in
Special Area Zones under the Delhi Master Plan-2021, issued by the
Urban Development Department vide Notification No. F.13/46/2006-
UD/16071 dated 15.09.2006. The learned APP contended that the
Delhi Master Plan clearly restricted commercial activity to the
ground floors of such properties, while upper floors were permitted
only for residential use, and this legal norm was blatantly violated by
the accused persons.
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 5 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
14. It was further submitted that the petitioner, Mohd. Imran, had
absconded after the incident and deliberately evaded arrest for a
period of 11 months, due to which a reward of ₹50,000/- was
announced by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for information
leading to his apprehension.
15. The learned APP also referred to statements of several
labourers, who confirmed that the portions they occupied had been
sub-let to them by Imran, and that the electric wiring in those sections
was in dilapidated and hazardous condition. Complaints had
allegedly been made to the owners, including Imran, but no remedial
action was taken. It was also discovered during investigation that the
lobby area on each floor was cluttered with highly flammable
materials, including cardboard, plastic glass frames, rexine goods,
cloth, and thermocol sheets (items primarily stored by Imran) which
created a severe fire hazard and obstructed movement. The electrical
wiring throughout the building was found to be exposed,
disorganized, and cut at multiple points. Despite repeated warnings
and complaints, the owners, including the present petitioner, had
allegedly failed to take any steps to rectify these conditions.
16. The learned APP further argued that there was sufficient prima
facie material on record to justify the framing of charges against the
petitioner. It was also submitted that though the present accused
relied upon the Rent Agreements executed between Mohd. Imran and
Nitesh Gupta (dated 01.07.2019), Honey Gupta (dated 07.09.2019),
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 6 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
and Shyam Sunder (dated 02.07.2019), along with a GPA, Possession
Letter, and Will executed by Imran in favour of Mohd. Rehan on
27.04.2015 in respect of the second floor of the property, many of
these documents were unregistered, lacked legal sanctity, and that
their genuineness cannot be checked and decided at this stage of
framing of charges.
17. In view of the above, the learned APP submitted that there is
no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions
Court, and that the present petition seeking discharge deserves to be
dismissed.
Petitioner’s Contentions
18. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner was not the owner of the second floor of Property No.
8273, Anaj Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, where the fire allegedly
originated. It was contended that any acts of omission, if at all, which
may have contributed to the incident, were committed by the owners
and occupiers of the second and third floors of the building in
question, and not by the petitioner, who had no control or possession
over those portions.
19. It was further argued that the various violations noted by the
learned Sessions Court in the impugned order could not be attributed
to the present petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that, as
recorded by the learned Sessions Court itself, the building originally
comprised only the ground and first floors, and the subsequent
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 7 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
construction up to the fourth floor was carried out by accused Mohd.
Rehan. Therefore, it was submitted that any unauthorised
construction or deficiencies in safety compliance were the
responsibility of Rehan, and not of the petitioner.
20. It was also contended that the learned Sessions Court
committed an error in rejecting the petitioner‟s plea that he was not
the owner of the property at the relevant time, merely on the ground
that the genuineness of the ownership documents was a matter for
trial. It was pointed out that the GPA executed by the petitioner in
favour of Mohd. Rehan on 27.04.2015 was a duly registered
document, registered with the Sub-Registrar at Kashmere Gate, and
hence its authenticity should not have been doubted at this stage.
21. The learned counsel further submitted that the short circuit
which allegedly caused the fire occurred on the second floor, which
was neither owned nor controlled by the petitioner. It was contended
that the ground floor of the building had been purchased by the
petitioner‟s father in 2007, and the petitioner had no role in the affairs
of the upper floors where the alleged unauthorised manufacturing
activities were taking place.
22. In light of the above submissions, it was argued that the
petitioner could not be held responsible for any acts or omissions on
the part of the owners or occupiers of the second floor, and
accordingly, it was prayed that the order on charge be set aside and
the petitioner be discharged from the present case.
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 8 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
23. This Court has heard and considered the submissions made
on behalf of either side and examined the material on record.
Analysis & Findings
24. Before delving into the merits of the rival contentions and
examining the petitioner‟s prayer for discharge, this Court considers
it apposite to first briefly recapitulate the settled legal principles
governing the framing of charge.
25. In Manendra Prasad Tiwari v. Amit Kumar Tiwari and Anr.:
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1057, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reiterated
the well-settled principles governing the framing of charge, and also
highlighted the scope of judicial interference at the stage of charge.
The relevant observations are as under:
“21. The law is well settled that although it is open to a High
Court entertaining a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC or
a revision application under Section 397 of the CrPC to quash
the charges framed by the trial court, yet the same cannot be
done by weighing the correctness or sufficiency of the
evidence. In a case praying for quashing of the charge, the
principle to be adopted by the High Court should be that if the
entire evidence produced by the prosecution is to be believed,
would it constitute an offence or not. The truthfulness, the
sufficiency and acceptability of the material produced at the
time of framing of a charge can be done only at the stage of
trial. To put it more succinctly, at the stage of charge the Court
is to examine the materials only with a view to be satisfied that
prima facie case of commission of offence alleged has been
made out against the accused person. It is also well settled that
when the petition is filed by the accused under Section 482
CrPC or a revision Petition under Section 397 read with
Section 401 of the CrPC seeking for the quashing of charge
framed against him, the Court should not interfere with the
order unless there are strong reasons to hold that in the interestCRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 9 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
of justice and to avoid abuse of the process of the Court a
charge framed against the accused needs to be quashed. Such
an order can be passed only in exceptional cases and on rare
occasions. It is to be kept in mind that once the trial court has
framed a charge against an accused the trial must proceed
without unnecessary interference by a superior court and the
entire evidence from the prosecution side should be placed on
record. Any attempt by an accused for quashing of a charge
before the entire prosecution evidence has come on record
should not be entertained sans exceptional cases.
22. The scope of interference and exercise of jurisdiction under
Section 397 of CrPC has been time and again explained by this
Court. Further, the scope of interference under Section 397
CrPC at a stage, when charge had been framed, is also well
settled. At the stage of framing of a charge, the court is
concerned not with the proof of the allegation rather it has to
focus on the material and form an opinion whether there is
strong suspicion that the accused has committed an offence,
which if put to trial, could prove his guilt. The framing of
charge is not a stage, at which stage the final test of guilt is to
be applied. Thus, to hold that at the stage of framing the
charge, the court should form an opinion that the accused is
certainly guilty of committing an offence, is to hold something
which is neither permissible nor is in consonance with the
scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure.
23. Section 397 CrPC vests the court with the power to call for
and examine the records of an inferior court for the purposes of
satisfying itself as to the legality and regularity of any
proceedings or order made in a case. The object of this
provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of
jurisdiction or law or the perversity which has crept in the
proceeding.”
26. Likewise, in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool
Magrey: (2022) 12 SCC 657, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, after
discussing several judicial precedents, summarised the legal position
regarding framing of charges and articulated the contours within
which the Court must operate at this stage. The observations in this
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 10 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
regard are extracted below:
“27. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is
enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing
of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The
endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is
without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons
in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However,
the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at
the time of framing charge should be the material which is
produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of
such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the
exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the
accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must
be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is
sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an
offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice…”
27. From the above decisions, it clearly emerges that the central
test to be applied while framing a charge is whether there exists
sufficient material on record which, if unrebutted and accepted at
face value, gives rise to a strong suspicion that the accused has
committed the offence in question. A „prima facie‟ case would imply
that there must be enough material or evidence that, when viewed at
its face value, gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that the accused
may have committed the alleged offence.
28. Having regard to the above legal position, it is now apposite to
examine the impugned order on charge passed by the learned
Sessions Court and evaluate whether the same suffers from any legal
infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. The relevant
portion of the impugned order is set out below:
“9. Perusal of the charge sheet and the supplementary charge
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 11 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
sheet filed against the present applicant/ accused reveal that a
number of rooms were built on the above said four floors by
the accused persons and a number of rooms were let out by the
accused persons including the present applicant/ accused
Mohd. Imran on a monthly rental of Rs. 15,000/-to Rs. 16,000/-
. The accused Mohd. Furkan was the manager of the building
and he used to collect the rent from the tenants on behalf of the
accused persons namely Mohd. Rehan, Mohd. Suhail and
Mohd. Imran.
***
11.As per the supplementary charge sheet, the present accused/
applicant Mohd. Imran was arrested on 15.11.2020, wherein,
the IO has mentioned that the owners of the property in
question including Mohd. Imran were only making monetary
benefits but they were the least concerned about the safety of
the persons who were actually working therein. The IO has
further submitted that the accused persons including the present
accused Mohd. Imran had rented all the rooms of the building,
of which, no registered agreement was executed in most of the
cases between the parties and no information relating to any
tenant was given to any of the agencies.
***
13. In the light of the above said facts and circumstances, I am
of the opinion that there is sufficient material available on
record prima facie to show that the present applicant/ accused
Mohd. Imran together with the accused persons namely Mohd.
Rehan and Mohd. Suhail was the owner of the premises in
question and the above said accused persons unauthorizedly
constructed the said property in violation of the various bylaws
and statutory provisions blatantly ignoring the safety of the
occupants of the above said property. The accused persons
further kept inflammable material inside the exit gates of the
building and by and also kept the live electricity wires open.
The ld. Predecessor of this court in the detailed orders dated
26.10.2020, has also discussed the role of the present applicant/
accused Mohd. Imran together with the role of the rest of the
accused persons in para no. 28 of the said orders.
14. In the written arguments, ld. Counsel for the applicant/
accused Mohd. Imran has heavily relied upon the rent
agreements executed in between Mohd. Imran and Nitesh
Gupta dated 01.07.2019; rent agreement executed between
Mohd. Imran and Honey Gupta dated 07.09.2019; rent
agreement executed between Mohd. Imran and Shyam SundarCRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 12 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
dated 02.07.2019; GPA, possession letter and Will executed by
Mohd. Imran in favour of Mohd. Rehan dated 27.04.2015 in
respect of the second floor of the above said property and has
argued that the above said applicant/ accused Mohd. Imran was
not the owner of the property in question at the relevant time. I
am of the opinion that the above said submission of the ld.
Counsel for the applicant/ accused is fallacious because the
authenticity and genuineness of the above said documents,
most of which are not even the registered ones, can be tested
only during evidence and trial and at this stage, at the time of
framing of the charge, when the court has to take a prima facie
view of the matter, the above said documents cannot be
accepted as true and genuine.
15. However, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not
attributed any intention to the applicant/ accused and the case
of the prosecution is based on the knowled.ge attributed to the
accused as per Section 299 of the IPC which is punishable u/s
304(11) of the IPC. I have no hesitation to hold that the role of
the present accused Mohd. Imran is in conformity and similar
to the role of the accused persons namely Mohd. Rehan and
Mohd. Suhail and as such, the present accused Mohd. Imran is
also liable to be charged under Section 304 Part 11 and Section
308 of the IPC R/w Section 35 and 36 IPC. In the alternate the
present applicant/ accused is also liable to be charged under
Section 304A/337/338/35/36 IPC.
16. Ld. Addl. PP for the State, during the course of arguments,
has fairly admitted that there is no material available on record
to frame the charges under Section 468/471 of the IPC against
the present applicant/ accused Mohd. Imran. As such, it is held
that no charge under Section 468/471 of the IPC is made out
against the present applicant/ accused Mohd. Imran.”
29. After a careful evaluation of the material brought on record,
this Court notes that the investigation revealed that the petitioner
Mohd. Imran was one of the co-owners of the building bearing nos.
8273 and 8274, Anaj Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The said building
was constructed up to five floors, although permission under
applicable regulations permitted a height of only 15 metres for
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 13 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
properties in „Special Area‟ as per MPD-2021. The building was
unauthorisedly constructed beyond permissible limits and was being
used for commercial activities without requisite approvals from
authorities. Also, the building was constructed with the help of
garters and tukdiyas without seeking any prior permission or NOC
from the concerned authorities and without making any provision for
emergency exit, proper ventilation, etc.
30. Imran, along with co-accused Rehan and Suhail, was renting
out several rooms and godowns within the building to various small-
scale manufacturers and traders without any sanctioned layout or
compliance with statutory safety norms. Rent agreements executed
by Imran with tenants like Nitesh Gupta, Shyam Sunder, Honey
Gupta and Prince Gupta confirm that he was actively sub-letting parts
of the building in exchange for monetary consideration, such as
Rs.30-40,000/- in each of such agreements. In most cases, the rental
arrangements were unregistered.
31. It also emerged during investigation that the property was
effectively functioning as a multi-storey industrial-cum-residential
establishment, housing over 100 workers engaged in manufacturing
units for items such as mirror frame mouldings, jackets, bags, caps,
tiffin covers, diaries, etc. The tenants brought in their labourers, most
of whom hailed from Bihar, who also resided in the same premises.
Investigations have revealed that even the petitioner Mohd. Imran
was residing on the 2nd floor of the said property with his brother
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 14 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
Ikraam (now deceased), which is the very floor where the fire
originated on 08.12.2019.
32. This Court further is of the opinion that the material collected
by the investigating agency reveals multiple and serious violations of
building safety norms attributable to the petitioner and his co-
accused:
● The wiring in the property was in a severely dilapidated
condition. Several tenants and labourers had raised complaints
with the property owners, including Imran, about exposed and
disorganized electrical wiring, but no action was taken.
● The lobby areas and shafts on every floor (including the floors
owned by the petitioner Imran) were completely stuffed with
highly inflammable materials such as thermocol sheets, plastic
frames, rexine, cardboard and cloth.
● The alternate staircase, which could have served as an
emergency exit, was permanently locked on all floors by the
owners; whereas the main staircase remained partially blocked
due to several material being kept in the staircase.
● There was no ventilation or compartmentation in the building,
which led to the accumulation of dense smoke once the fire
broke out. The victims were trapped and unable to escape, and
the majority of fatalities occurred due to suffocation from
smoke inhalation.
● The building lacked the most basic firefighting arrangements.
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 15 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
There were no fire extinguishers, sand buckets, water supplies,
fire alarms, or emergency lights and signage in the entire
premises.
33. Furthermore, as per the charge sheet and status report, it is
evident that Imran, along with other co-accused, was motivated by
profit and completely indifferent to the safety and well-being of the
workers residing and working in the building. No steps were taken by
the petitioner to address such serious defects pointed out by tenants
and workers from time to time, despite repeated warnings, including
a previous incident of fire in March 2019.
34. In the above background, this Court is of the view that the
learned Sessions Court, in the impugned order as well as in another
order dated 26.10.2020 framing charge against co-accused persons,
rightly noted that the petitioner Mohd. Imran, and co-accused Rehan
and Suhail were the de facto owners and beneficiaries of the unlawful
commercial operation of the building. The Court observed that these
accused persons had not only allowed illegal construction, but also
ignored statutory provisions and basic safety norms, thereby placing
the lives of numerous persons at grave risk. The fire incident was a
direct consequence of this collective negligence.
35. In the impugned order, the learned Sessions Court also rightly
held that the documents relied upon by the petitioner to disclaim the
ownership of the second and third floor, such as GPA and rent
agreements, do not conclusively establish at this stage, that he had no
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 16 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
control over the property, especially in light of the statements of the
witnesses, the nature of incident, and the deficiencies found in the
entire building by the investigating agency. These documents, many
of which are unregistered, are matters of trial and their genuineness
can only be tested during the course of evidence. At this stage, they
do not rebut the prima facie material demonstrating his involvement
in renting the premises. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner did
not cause the fire and he was not the owner of the floor on which the
short circuit took place, the material on record prima facie indicates
that he had the requisite knowledge of the dangerous condition of the
premises and its likely consequences.
36. The plea of innocence taken by accused Imran, or his attempt
to distance himself from the unfortunate incident, is equally
unmerited. To reiterate, as per the admitted position and the findings
during investigation, Imran was the owner of a portion of the fourth
floor and also owned the storeroom constructed on the fifth floor
(terrace) of the building in question. These structures, being
unauthorised and illegal, reflect clear violation of building norms.
Moreover, being the owner of the ground floor portion of the
building, Imran was under a heightened duty of care, since in the
eventuality of any fire or emergency, the occupants of upper floors
would be compelled to rush down to the ground floor through the
common staircase to escape. The investigation has brought out that
the common staircase remained majorly blocked throughout with
stored material (which included inflammable material),
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 17 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
compromising the escape route and thereby putting lives in grave
danger. Such circumstances cannot be brushed aside or ignored.
37. The investigation further revealed that the electric wiring of the
entire building was in a dilapidated and poorly maintained condition.
The mere fact that the short circuit, which allegedly caused the fire,
occurred on the second floor cannot absolve the petitioner in this
case. The dangerous and neglected condition of the electric wiring
throughout the premises contributed to the overall risk and cannot be
compartmentalised floor-wise. The investigation also revealed
complete absence of any fire-fighting equipment or safety
mechanisms on the portions also owned by the petitioner. Such
glaring lapses, viewed cumulatively, indicate not just negligence but
reckless disregard for the safety of occupants of the building.
38. Thus, the culpable knowledge attributable to him satisfies the
ingredients of Section 299 of IPC, and justifies the framing of charge
under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC; and similarly, for offence under
Section 308 of IPC, read with Section 35 and 36 of IPC. The learned
Sessions Court has also rightly framed alternate charge under
Sections 304A of IPC (causing death by negligence) and Sections
337 and 338 IPC (causing hurt and grievous hurt by acts so rashly or
negligently done as to endanger human life or personal safety) in the
facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner‟s daily presence at
the building (which was constructed unauthorisedly), ownership of
other floors, his role in sub-letting portions of the premises for
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 18 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39
earning money, and not rectifying the defects in the building despite a
prior incident of fire, all point – at this stage – to his active
participation, and sharing responsibilities, with the co-accused
persons in committing acts which led to the unfortunate incidents in
question.
39. In view of the above findings, this Court is of the opinion that
the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Court does not
suffer from any legal infirmity since the material on record discloses
a prima facie case against the petitioner.
40. The present petition seeking quashing of the order on charge is
therefore devoid of merit, and is accordingly dismissed, alongwith
pending application.
41. It is, however, clarified that the observations made in the
present judgment are only prima facie in nature, confined to the stage
of framing of charge, and are not to be construed as final expression
of opinion on the merits of the case. The trial shall proceed
uninfluenced by any of the findings or observations recorded herein.
42. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 04, 2025/zp
TD
CRL.REV.P. 1280/2024 Page 19 of 19
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.08.2025
18:51:39