Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an order on charge in a case arising from the 2019 Anaj Mandi fire incident. The Court held that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner and found no legal infirmity in the order framing charges passed by the Sessions Court. It directed that the trial proceeds uninfluenced by the Court's observations, which were limited to the stage of framing of charge.

On 8 December 2019, at approximately 5:22 AM, a PCR call was received at Police Station Sadar Bazar, reporting a fire at House No. 8273, Anaj Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Emergency services, including 25 fire tenders, NDRF teams, and CATS ambulances, responded, bringing the blaze under control after about 3.5 hours. The incident resulted in 45 deaths, including nine minors, and injuries to 21 persons.

Also Read: Supreme Court Dismisses Hotel Firm’s Plea Against Shimla Green Zone Notification | Warns Entire Himachal Pradesh May Vanish If Revenue Generation Overrides Environmental Protection

Investigations revealed that properties No. 8273 and 8274 were interconnected and functioned as a single composite structure, jointly owned by three accused, including the petitioner, Mohd. Imran. Multiple rooms on each floor were sub-let to contractors who ran illegal manufacturing units without licenses or authorisation, employing labourers in violation of safety and zoning regulations.

The prosecution alleged that unsafe conditions prevailed, including obstructed staircases, storage of flammable materials, exposed wiring, and absence of fire safety equipment. Expert opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory indicated an electric shock as the probable cause of the fire. The building exceeded height restrictions under the Delhi Master Plan–2021 and violated commercial activity limitations.

The petitioner sought discharge, claiming he neither owned nor controlled the floor where the short circuit occurred. He relied on documents, including rent agreements and a GPA in favour of co-accused Mohd. Rehan, to disclaim ownership of certain floors. The prosecution contended that many documents were unregistered and their authenticity could only be determined at trial.

The Sessions Court framed charges under Sections 304 (Part II), 308, 35, and 36 IPC, and alternatively under Sections 304A, 337, 338, 35, and 36 IPC. It found sufficient material to link the petitioner to ownership and management of the premises, unauthorised construction, and disregard for occupant safety.

The Court recorded: "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." It noted that even strong suspicion sufficed at this stage.

It stated: "The dangerous and neglected condition of the electric wiring throughout the premises contributed to the overall risk and cannot be compartmentalised floor-wise." Further, "The plea of innocence... is equally unmerited." The Court observed that the petitioner had control over portions of the building and was actively sub-letting parts to manufacturers, earning monetary benefits while ignoring safety hazards.

The Court found that Imran resided on the second floor, where the fire originated, and owned portions of the fourth and fifth floors. It stated that the petitioner had a duty of care, particularly as the owner of the ground floor, given that escape routes for upper floors passed through it. The staircase remained blocked with stored materials, further endangering lives.

The judgment recorded: "Such glaring lapses, viewed cumulatively, indicate not just negligence but reckless disregard for the safety of occupants of the building." It concluded that the knowledge attributable to the petitioner satisfied Section 299 IPC and justified framing charges under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and related provisions.

Also Read: Delhi High Court Grants Summary Judgment In Tata Power Trademark Case | Issues Dynamic Injunction Against John Doe For Misusing Brand

The Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the order on charge, stating: "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." It ordered that: "The present petition... is accordingly dismissed, along with pending application."

It further directed: "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."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shamim A. Khan, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State, with Inspector Vinay

Case Title: Mohd. Imran v. The State GNCTD

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:6484

Case Number: CRL.REV. P. 1280/2024 & CRL.M.A. 33901/2024

Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma