ASHVINKUMAR MANILAL LODHIA vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/3620/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 3620 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
ASHVINKUMAR MANILAL LODHIA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR RONAK RAVAL, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 29/06/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Present application has been preferred under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of
the FIR being I-C.R. No. 38 of 2013 registered with
Junagadh B-Division Police Station, as well as the charge-
sheet dated 01.03.2014 filed in connection therewith for
the offences punishable under Sections 304, 308, 337,
465, 471, 201, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code,
wherein the present applicant has been arraigned as
accused No. 11.
1.1. As per the allegations contained in the FIR as well as the
charge-sheet submitted by the Police Sub-Inspector,
Junagadh B-Division, and further investigation carried out
by the Police Inspector, Crime Branch, Junagadh, it is
alleged that the A-Wing of a building known as “Monarch-
2,” situated at Raiji Baug, Junagadh, bearing Revenue
Survey No. 253/1 paiki-1/paiki-3, Block No. 1, collapsed,
resulting in the death of two persons and injuries to six
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 09 02:05:34 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3620/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
others. According to the FIR, the collapse of the building
was attributed to poor construction quality. It is further
alleged that the premises were being used by labourers
for furniture-related work, and that excavation had been
carried out in the parking area due to the absence of
proper drainage facilities, which also contributed to the
collapse. Initially, eight persons, stated to be partners of
Mars Developers, were named as accused in the FIR.
Subsequently, upon completion of investigation, a
charge-sheet came to be filed against 14 accused
persons, including the present applicant, which is the
subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings
before this Court.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the applicant
learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli submitted that the
present applicant is a structural designer by profession
and that he has been sought to be implicated nearly ten
months after the registration of the complaint. It is
submitted that the applicant's role is confined to
preparing the structural design of the building, which,
upon completion, is handed over to the builder.
Thereafter, the applicant has no role whatsoever in the
execution of the construction work at the site. It is further
submitted that the applicant is a licensed structural
designer duly authorised by the competent authority and
has successfully undertaken structural design work for
several reputed institutions, including APMC, Jamnagar;
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 09 02:05:34 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3620/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
Rajkot Municipal Corporation; APMC, Vanthali; Junagadh
Nagarpalika; APMC, Veraval; Jan Seva Kendra, Diu; Rajkot
Central Jail; Police Training College; Dining and Kitchen
City, Junagadh; RMC Central Zone; Gujarat State Police
Housing Corporation, and various other public
institutions.
3.1. It is further submitted that the applicant's role was
limited only to preparation and submission of the
structural design. Thereafter, he had no further role in
the execution of the project. It is the responsibility of the
site supervisor and other technical personnel at the site
to ensure physical supervision of the construction and to
verify that the work is carried out in accordance with the
structural design prepared by the structural engineer. It
is submitted that the applicant was not initially shown as
an accused and has subsequently been falsely
implicated. In the absence of any material to indicate
that the structural design prepared by the applicant was
defective or contrary to the applicable building codes and
standards, no prima facie case is made out against him.
In the aforesaid background, it is submitted that criminal
prosecution cannot be permitted to continue against a
structural designer merely because the structural design
was prepared and submitted by him.
4. Per contra, learned APP Mr. Raval, appearing for the
State, submitted that the present applicant was the
structural engineer who had prepared the structural
design for the high-rise building in question. It is
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 09 02:05:34 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3620/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
submitted that the structural design did not provide for a
proper drainage system, which was one of the
contributing factors leading to the collapse of the
building. Owing to the absence of an appropriate
drainage facility, excavation had to be undertaken in the
basement by using heavy machinery, namely breakers,
which ultimately weakened the foundation of the
building. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the
applicant to ensure that the structural design was
prepared in accordance with the applicable rules and
standards. It is also submitted that the responsibility to
supervise and verify the structural stability, quality of
construction material and compliance with the structural
design rested upon the structural engineer, the site
supervisor and the builder.
4.1. Learned APP Mr. Raval further submitted that, after the
incident, the licence of the applicant came to be
suspended. The reports submitted by various authorities,
including GARY, indicate that the excavation work carried
out continuously for more than one month had weakened
the foundation, which ultimately resulted in the collapse
of the building. It is, therefore, submitted that, at this
stage, it would not be appropriate to hold that the
negligence attributed to the present applicant does not
amount to gross negligence or that it fails to satisfy the
ingredients of Sections 304 and 308 of the Indian Penal
Code. In the aforesaid circumstances, no interference is
called for in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court, and the present application deserves to be
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 09 02:05:34 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3620/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
rejected.
5. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the material collected during the course of
investigation, it prima facie appears that, at the time of
grant of development permission, the requisite structural
design had not been submitted. The development
permission for construction of a basement, ground floor
and nine upper floors was granted on 31.08.2010 and
remained valid for a period of one year, i.e. up to
31.08.2011. The panchnama drawn at the site reveals
that excavation work for laying a sewage line was being
carried out by using heavy machinery, namely breakers,
and that such work had been in progress for
approximately one month prior to the incident. It further
emerges that, under Condition No.7 of the development
permission, it was specifically stipulated that the
structural design was required to be prepared in
accordance with the applicable ISO provisions and
submitted to the competent authority within sixty days
from the date of grant of development permission. The
material collected during the course of investigation
prima facie indicates that the requisite structural design,
as mandated under the applicable ISO provisions, was
not submitted. Consequently, excavation had to be
undertaken in the basement/parking area for laying the
sewage line by using heavy machinery, which allegedly
weakened the foundation of the multi-storeyed building
and ultimately resulted in its collapse.
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 09 02:05:34 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3620/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
5.1. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be held, at this
stage, that the ingredients of the offence punishable
under Section 304 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code are
not attracted. Whether the negligence attributed to the
present applicant amounts to gross negligence is a
matter to be adjudicated upon after appreciation of
evidence during trial, and the learned Trial Court shall
determine the same on the basis of the evidence that
may be led by the parties. However, having regard to the
undisputed fact that the collapse of the building prima
facie occurred on account of weakening of the foundation
caused by excavation undertaken for laying the drainage
line by using heavy machinery, coupled with the use of
substandard construction material, resulting in the loss of
two human lives, this Court is of the opinion that no case
is made out for interference with the prosecution
launched against the present applicant.
6. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision
of the Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal ,
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , wherein the
Hon’ble Court has illustratively laid down certain
categories of cases in which the extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure may be exercised for quashing of an
FIR, either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court
or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Reference is
made to paragraph 102 of the said judgment:-
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 09 02:05:34 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3620/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to
the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not
be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(i) Where the allegations made in the first information report or
the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(iii) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(iv) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(v) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is
sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(vi) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 09 02:05:34 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/3620/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/06/2026
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(vii) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
7. In these circumstance, the case of the applicant does not
fall in any of the criteria stated in the case of Bhajan
Lal, (supra) .
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion and considering the
material collected during the course of investigation, this
Court is of the opinion that the allegations and the
evidence collected by the prosecution prima facie
disclose the commission of cognizable offences and raise
disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated
in exercise of inherent powers. No case is made out for
quashing the impugned FIR/charge-sheet. Accordingly,
the present application fails and is rejected. Rule is
discharged. Interim relief, stands vacated.
9. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only
for the limited purpose of deciding the present
application and shall not be construed as an expression
on the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall
decide the case independently, on the basis of the
evidence that may be adduced before it, without being
influenced by any observations made in this order.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Wed Jul 08 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 09 02:05:34 IST 2026