Watchdog Foundation Seeks Probe into Dilution of Charges in Hotel City Kinara Fire Tragedy

Mumbai, June 12 : Serious questions have emerged surrounding the handling of the Hotel City Kinara fire case (FIR No. 280/2015 dated 16.10.2015), after a hearing held before the Hon’ble Lokayukta on January 24, 2017, where trustees of Watchdog Foundation alleged that the Mumbai Police may have diluted charges against the accused despite clear evidence suggesting culpability.

The hearing saw the presence of key officials including Senior Inspector and Investigation Officer from Vinoba Bhave Nagar Police Station, Kurla, Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Zone 5) Shri Bharat R. Marathe, and trustees Nicholas Almeida and Godfrey Pimenta of Watchdog Foundation.

During the proceedings, the Hon’ble Lokayukta posed a direct query to the Investigation Officer regarding the sections applied in the FIR and charge sheet. The officer confirmed that Sections 304, 285, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were invoked. Notably, Section 304(II)—which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, was initially applied but later downgraded to a general Section 304 based on the advice of Public Prosecutor Mrs. Chavan, as admitted by the Investigation Officer.

Watchdog Foundation has raised strong objections to this change, emphasizing that documents attached with the charge sheet establish that the accused had prior knowledge of the risks involved in their actions, particularly the use of LPG stoves outside the premises of the eatery. In support of their claims, the Foundation cited an early complaint filed on October 22, 2012, by one Martin Mathew, warning of a potential mishap at Hotel City Kinara due to unsafe cooking practices.

Further, a 2003 directive from the Assistant Municipal Commissioner of L Ward, BMC had instructed health officials to inspect the establishment, pointing to prior official acknowledgment of the violations. The operation of the hotel from a mezzanine floor—which was only legally permitted for storage—further demonstrated blatant disregard for safety norms, the Foundation argued.

Watchdog Foundation highlighted a Supreme Court precedent—Alistair Anthony Pareira vs State of Maharashtra (2012)—where it was established that Section 304 Part II is applicable when the accused has knowledge that their act is likely to cause death. The Foundation insists that this criterion was clearly met in the City Kinara case, and yet, a softer charge was allowed to proceed.

“This appears to be a clear case of protecting the accused by diluting serious charges, despite compelling evidence,” said Godfrey Pimenta, adding that an impartial inquiry is necessary to determine whether this legal leniency was deliberate.

The Foundation has officially requested the Hon’ble Lokayukta to conduct a thorough enquiry into why the more stringent Section 304(II) was not retained in the final charge sheet and whether there was any undue influence or procedural misconduct.

The Hotel City Kinara fire, which occurred in 2015, had resulted in multiple casualties, and now, nearly a decade later, questions continue to surface not only about regulatory failures but also the integrity of the criminal investigation.