2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 16207
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Hasmukh D. Suthar, J
BHARATBHAI GHANSHYAMBHAI SHAHV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 264 of 2013
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Discharge
Act Referred
Headnote
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nandish H Thakkar
For the Respondents: Rohan Raval
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding building collapse and applicant's role as a financier. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on financier role versus active participation in construction. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. absence of mens rea and builder status for the applicant. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. legal standards for discharge and ingredients of culpable homicide. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. justification for discharge and final order quashing the lower court's decision. (Para 12 , 13) |
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
JUDGMENT
1. By filing these revision application, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside order dated 03.12.2011 passed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case NO.371 of 2010 and further be pleased to direct discharge of the petitioners in terms of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the present revision application arises from the order dated 03.12.2011 passed by the learned Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 371 of 2010, whereby the application filed under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. for discharge came to be rejected. The case pertains to damage caused to Sangemarmar Complex situated at Ambawadi, Ahmedabad, during the devastating earthquake of 26.01.2001 measuring 7.9 on the Richter Scale, which caused widespread destruction across the State of Gujarat. The complex comprised two wings containing nine flats and was constructed between 1989 and 1991. One wing consisting of four flats suffered severe damage, whereas the other wing remained unaffected. The land on which the complex was constructed originally belonged to Mr. Shodhan, who had obtained the necessary permissions and undertaken the development and construction activities. The applicant had financed the superstructure construction and subsequently occupied one flat, while two other flats stood in the names of his wife and HUF. The record further indicates that permissions, municipal payments, electricity connections and ownership-related documents were in the name of Mr. Shodhan. Certain construction agreements executed in the year 1992 were entered into after completion of construction. The building had remained occupied and in use by all residents, including Mr. Shodhan, until the earthquake occurred in the year 2001.
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Thakkar, appearing for the applicant, has submitted that the present applicant has no connection whatsoever with the construction of the alleged structure and was merely a financier. It is contended that there is no material on record to indicate that the applicant was in any manner engaged in the construction of the “Sangemarmar Complex. It is further submitted that the building in question suffered damage due to the high-intensity earthquake that occurred on 26 January 2001, which was a natural calamity. The structure comprised two wings connected by a common staircase and lift, consisting of five apartments in one wing and four in the other, and certain portions were damaged. The construction had commenced in 1989 and was completed in 1991, nearly a decade prior to the earthquake. Therefore, the damage cannot be attributed to any alleged act or omission on the part of the applicant.
3.1 Learned counsel has emphasized that there was no mens rea or criminal intention on the part of the applicant. Moreover, no material on record establishes any involvement of the applicant in the construction activity. All permissions for construction were obtained by one Mr. Jagdishchandra Gordhandas Sodhan, the builder, who has consistently asserted his ownership over the property. The record further reveals that the said builder had applied for and obtained requisite permissions from AUDA and had also filed affidavits before the competent authorities affirm