The Delhi High Court has upheld the framing of criminal charges against the owner of the building where a major fire broke out in Anaj Mandi in 2019, finding sufficient evidence that required judicial scrutiny. The incident had claimed multiple lives and caused substantial destruction, highlighting severe breaches in safety compliance. The trial court had earlier framed charges under provisions relating to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, causing grievous hurt, and negligent conduct endangering life, following which the accused challenged the decision.
Upon review, the High Court rejected the challenge and affirmed that the prosecution had presented prima facie material alleging serious omissions by the accused in implementing fire safety measures. The Court pointed out that the accused had failed to install adequate fire escapes, maintain firefighting equipment, or ensure clear evacuation paths, despite prior notices and the presence of flammable materials stored in basements and stairwells. Evidence included eyewitness testimony, safety audit deficiencies, and documentary proof of repeated warnings issued by municipal authorities about non-compliance with building regulations.
Justice AK Chawla, presiding over the three-judge bench, highlighted that the framing stage does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, but merely credible allegations capable of supporting a conviction if proven at trial. The Court observed that the prosecution’s case contained sufficient factual content indicating that the building owner had neglected statutory responsibilities under fire safety norms. It also referenced regulatory mandates that oblige all building owners to install proper alarm systems, maintain regular fire drills, and ensure structural provisions for emergency egress, none of which appeared to have been followed in this instance.
The judgment emphasized that loss of innocent life in such emergencies amplifies the duty of care owed by property owners under the law. The Court noted parallels with past decisions where judicial bodies have held owners criminally liable when disasters stemmed from predictable risks that could have been mitigated with reasonable precautions. Drawing from these precedents, the bench affirmed that the charges had been rightly framed in light of the serious allegations.
The High Court also considered and dismissed submissions by the defense arguing that the fire was of suspicious origin unrelated to safety lapses. The Court pointed to expert testimony and forensic findings indicating that flammable chemical storage in unauthorized locations likely accelerated the blaze and obstructed rescue efforts. Even if the exact cause remained under investigation, the underlying negligence and poor safety management provided legitimate grounds for criminal investigation.
In dismissing the writ challenge, the Court reaffirmed that procedural safeguards during the framing stage protect both the accused and the prosecution. It reiterated that the presence of disputed facts or conflicting expert opinions does not invalidate the framing decision if the allegations presented are serious and specific. The trial court is best positioned to evaluate evidence in depth, examine witnesses, and consider expert explanations before reaching conclusions on culpability.
The Court noted that framing charges is a threshold exercise demanding caution, but also underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring accountability. This balance preserves prosecutorial rights while protecting individuals from unwarranted prosecution. In this case, given the nature of the tragedy, the scale of loss, and the apparent disregard for mandatory safety standards, the Court concluded that judicial evaluation at trial was warranted.
The High Court’s ruling leaves intact the criminal proceedings under the relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code, enabling trial to continue. The decision allows the investigating authorities to gather and present further evidence, conduct cross-examinations of witnesses, and calibrate charges in accordance with subsequent findings. The framing of charges sets the stage for trial, where the accused will have the full opportunity to defend against allegations through evidence, expert testimony, and legal argument.
By upholding the framing, the Court has sent a clear message that violations of building and fire safety norms cannot be excused as mere administrative default. Especially when human lives are lost in tragic events that could have been prevented, courts must ensure that the law is not reduced to a mere alphabet. The decision reiterates that public interest demands rigorous legal inquiry where lapses in safety infrastructure are linked to fatal outcomes.
In granting no relief, the High Court underscored the importance of structural compliance, regulatory enforcement, and professional accountability. The judgment leaves intact the charges against the building owner, paving the way for judicial scrutiny at trial, and reinforces the rule that criminal liability may follow from gross negligence in burning circumstances where statutory obligations have been repeatedly flouted.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.