Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against College Trustees and Faculty in 2016 Murud Beach Drowning Tragedy, Issues Guidelines on Beach Safety

In a comprehensive judgment delivered on October 22, 2026, the Bombay High Court allowed four criminal applications filed under Section 482 of the CrPC and quashed FIR No. 24 of 2016 registered at Murud Police Station under Sections 304A and 34 of the IPC. Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that the tragic drowning of 14 college students who were majors on a public beach was an unfortunate accident, and criminal negligence under Section 304A cannot be attributed vicariously to college trustees, management, or accompanying faculty members in the absence of a direct, proximate causal link.

Background

• The College Picnic: On February 1, 2016, Abeda Inamdar Senior College of Arts, Science and Commerce (run by the Maharashtra Cosmopolitan Education Society, Pune) organized a picnic to Murud Beach, Raigad, involving 116 students across different academic years accompanied by faculty and staff.
• The Tragic Incident: Around 41 third-year B.Sc. (Computer Science) students ventured into the sea water for leisure. Tragically, 2022 students were swept away by undercurrents; while local residents and rescuers saved 6 but 14 students lost their lives by drowning.
• The FIR: Following an initial inquiry under ADR No. 4 of 2016, an FIR was registered about 80 days later against 17 individuals, including college trustees, the in-charge principal, assistant professors, lab assistants, and peons. The applicants approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.

Court’s Analysis

1. Inapplicability of Section 304A IPC and Vicarious Liability

• Absence of Proximate Cause: Citing classic jurisprudence from Emperor v. Omkar Rampratap and Kurban Hussein, the Court reiterated that criminal liability under Section 304A requires a rash or negligent act that is the direct, proximate, and efficient cause of death, without the intervention of another’s negligence (causa causans).
• Adult Students: The victims were all major students (above 18 years of age) possessing the maturity to appreciate the consequences of their actions.
• Trustees and Faculty Roles: Trustees (Application No. 493 of 2016) were not present at the venue. Teachers accompanying first and second-year batches (Applications No. 568 and 569) supervised separate cohorts and returned safely. Even the faculty accompanying the third-year batch (Application No. 975) could not be held criminally liable, as the students’ decision to venture into a public sea was an accident devoid of mens rea or direct actionable negligence on the part of the staff.

2. State Responsibility and Beach Safety Lacunae

• Drawing parallels with Melvin Kumar v. K.S. Harisha and Sushil Ansal, the Court noted that just as the occupier of a resort owes a duty of care for a swimming pool, the State Government is responsible for maintaining safety measures at public beaches.
• The Court criticized the reactive approach of authorities and emphasized that penalizing educators vicariously without adequate state-provided public safety infrastructure (such as lifeguards, warning signages, and rescue boats) does not address root safety failures.

Directions Issued by the Court

• FIR Quashed: Criminal Application Nos. 493, 568, 569, and 975 of 2016 were allowed, and FIR No. 24 of 2016 of Murud Police Station along with all consequential proceedings against the applicants stand quashed and set aside.
• State Policy on Beach Safety: The Court directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra and the Ministry of Tourism to formulate and implement a uniform, permanent policy across all crowded sea-water beachfronts, incorporating:
  • Installation of bilingual warning signs (English and Marathi) detailing high-tide timings and marine hazards.
  • Allocation of funds for appointing permanent lifeguards (equated to the essential utility of firemen), watchtowers, protective grills, and demarcation of safe swimming zones.
  • Deployment of mobile patrol vans/jeeps and utilization of expert rescue agencies along tourist beachfronts.

Citation: P.A. Inamdar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2026:BHC-AS:42978-DB)