Jammu: A court in Jammu and Kashmir’s Katra on Saturday dismissed a plea seeking registration of an FIR against Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board officials over the death of 35 pilgrims in a landslide on the tracks to the shrine, holding that it was caused by a natural disaster.
It said the order, however, would have no bearing on the inquiry ordered by Lieutenant Governor Manoj Sinha into the unfortunate incident three days later.
The complainant had alleged that despite weather advisories issued by the Meteorological Centre Srinagar and the Jammu and Kashmir Union Territory Disaster Management Authority, the pilgrimage was not suspended. This amounts to criminal negligence by the shrine board’s chief executive officer and other officials, the plea argued.
Sub Judge (Judicial Magistrate First Class) Katra Sidhant Vaid dismissed the complaint filed under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which sought directions to police to register an FIR under Sections 105 and 106 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
“From the perusal of allegations alleged in the complaint, statements recorded by the police and the police report, it is very much clear that the proximate and immediate cause of the unfortunate incident was a natural disaster.
“Even if what has been pleaded in the complaint is presumed to be true, then also non-compliance of the advisories issued by the meteorological department could be a lapse on the administrative side and no element of criminal negligence is present,” the judge said.
He went on to say, “In my considered opinion, the case of criminal negligence is not made out, and no cognisable offence is prima facie made out.”
Referring to police reports and witness statements, the court said the pilgrimage was halted from time to time whenever required in the interest of public safety and standard operating procedures were followed.
Witnesses stated that rainfall had been occurring for two to three days prior to the August 26 incident, and the yatra had been intermittently stopped on August 24 and 25 due to heavy rain.
The court held that for criminal liability under Section 106 of BNS, there must be proof of a grossly negligent or rash act, foreseeability of harm and a direct causal link between the act or omission and the death. “Mere error of judgment or an administrative lapse does not suffice for criminal liability,” it said.
The court ruled out the offence of culpable homicide under Section 105 of BNS, noting that intention and negligence represent different states of mind and the complaint itself alleged negligence rather than intent.
