Gujarat High Court refuses to quash case against construction firm MD over collapsed water tank and allegedly falsified soil-test report

Jayantibhai Ambalal Patel, Managing Director of Jayanti Super Construction Pvt. Ltd., sought to quash an FIR and subsequent charge-sheet arising from the collapse of a 9-lakh-litre water tank constructed under a government contract at Gaypagla village, Surat.

The prosecution alleged that the required soil test had not been conducted at the construction site and that a soil-testing report for another parcel of land had been submitted to the authorities.

Patel argued that the company had authorized Tej Ishwarbhai Patel to manage the contract work, that he could not be held vicariously liable, and that the company had repaid the Board for the tank’s cost.

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 316(5), 318(4), 125A and 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; a charge-sheet had been filed and the case was pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandvi.

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings disclosed a sufficient prima facie case against Patel to refuse quashing under Section 528 of the BNSS.

Whether Patel could avoid criminal responsibility by relying on the company’s appointment of another representative and the company’s repayment of the tank’s cost.

The application was brought under Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court’s inherent-power provision. The Court assessed the investigation material to determine whether a prima facie case existed against the applicant.

The applicant relied on Anand Gopal Mahindra v. State of Gujarat, Sushil Sethi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation in support of his submission that a company officer should not be held vicariously liable merely by virtue of office; the Court found those authorities inapplicable on the facts because Patel himself held an operative power of attorney authorizing him to act in relation to the contract.

The FIR invoked Sections 316(5), 318(4), 125A and 54 of the BNS.

The investigation material indicated that the soil-testing report submitted to the authorities related to a different parcel of land, while the construction site had not been tested and was unsuitable for the tank; the Court considered this conduct prima facie indicative of an intention to defraud the Government and misuse public money.

Patel’s reliance on Tej Ishwarbhai Patel’s appointment did not displace his own responsibility: an earlier power of attorney authorized Patel to handle documents and matters concerning the contract, and there was no material showing that it had been revoked.

Nor did repayment of the tank’s cost extinguish potential criminal liability.

It dismissed the application to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.