Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a suo motu writ petition registered regarding the Indore Truck Crash Case wherein a rashly driven truck entered a residential area thereby causing several accidents, injuries to 35 people and loss of three lives, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Sachdeva, CJ., and Vinay Saraf, J., held that despite the order passed by the Court, sufficient action was not taken by the authorities to prevent recurrence of similar incidents.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police (‘the Commissioner’) to appear before the Court through VC on the next date and consider the suggestions given by the Amicus Curiae and submit his response.
Background
The Court took cognizance based on a news report in Dainik Bhaskar, Indore Edition, on 16-09-2025, that a heavy goods truck entered the residential area of Indore from Kalani Nagar Square to Bada Ganpati Square, which is approximately 2 km, in the peak hours of the evening. The truck was being driven rashly and negligently, thus it hit several vehicles and caused several accidents, injuring 35 people, wherein 12 suffered grievous injuries, and 3 people lost their lives. Thereafter, the truck caught fire.
Taking note of the news report and video of the incident, the Court directed the Commissioner to file an affidavit explaining how the truck was permitted to enter a busy residential area during the peak hours and travel for approximately 2 km, and why no action was taken to stop it from entering the area. Furthermore, the Court directed that the affidavit shall mention what preventive actions were being proposed to prevent the recurrence of such an event in the future.
Accordingly, on the next date, a status report was filed by the State, and the Court was informed that an investigation, inter alia, into the conduct of certain police officers was underway. Since the State informed that the status report contained certain materials which might be sensitive to the investigation, the Court directed the Registry to keep it in a sealed cover.
Thereafter, the Court directed the State to file the CCTV footage of the Camera installed at the entry point where the offending truck had entered the said road.
Analysis
Upon perusal of the status report filed by the Amicus Curiae, the Court held that despite the order passed by the Court, sufficient action had not been taken by the authorities to prevent recurrence of similar incidents.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Commissioner to appear before it via VC on the next date, i.e., 19-11-2025. He was also directed to consider the suggestions of the Amicus Curiae and submit his response on the next date of hearing.
[In Reference (Suo Motu PIL) v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No. 37620 of 2025, decided on 10-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Senior Advocate Vivek Sharma as Amicus Curiae with Advocates Amit Khatri and Kuldeep Shukla
For the respondent: Deputy Advocate General Swapnil Ganguly