Gujarat High Court
Gulabbhai Bhukhiyabhai Gamit vs State Of Gujarat on 17 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/1097/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 1097 of 2014
==========================================================
GULABBHAI BHUKHIYABHAI GAMIT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GAURAV CHUDASAMA(5660) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 17/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant has prayed to quash and set aside the FIR being I-C.R.No.37 of 2014 registered with Udhna Police Station, Surat for the offences under Sections 304(A) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Chudasama for the petitioner and learned APP Mr.Dave for respondent - State. Though respondent No.2 is served, none remained present.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Chudasama for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is Junior Engineer in Surat Municipal Corporation. The work assigned to him is to supervise the excavation of land / earth for the purpose of lying water pipeline. It is submitted that apart from assignment of said Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:21:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1097/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined work, no other work was carried by the petitioner. Contract for excavating earth was given to one Mr.Zala. On 19.01.2014 he was excavating the earth for the purpose of lying water pipeline through JCB machine operated by one Mr.Gunjan. However, as per FIR, during such excavation work, gas pipe line on plot Nos.168, 170 and 177 were damaged. Persons from Gujarat Gas Company were immediately called and they have repaired gas line on that day; work of excavation work was completed and on the next day, on plot No.177 where house was situated, blast took place in which five persons expired.
3.1. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that offence under Section 304(A) of IPC is registered against the petitioner; however, he has no role to play in commission of offence. It is further submitted that petitioner's role was limited to supervise excavation work as Junior Engineer of Surat Municipal Corporation and during excavation work, three gas pipelines were damaged and they were repaired on that day by competent persons. Blast took place on next date, it has no connection with leakage of gas, which was carried through three gas pipelines. It is submitted that legal heirs of five persons, who have lost lives in the blast on 20.01.2014, have preferred Special Civil Suit No.530 of 2016 before the learned Civil Court, Surat against Surat Municipal Corporation, Executive Engineer, SMC, Udhna, Surat and Gujarat Gas Company Ltd. for getting compensation of Rs.2,62,00,000/-. However, learned Trial Court dismissed the suit after appreciating evidence on record. It is further submitted in that extent continuance of FIR against present petitioner would be abuse of process of law. Learned Trial Court since has Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:21:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1097/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined appreciated evidence, in this regard, judgment and decree arrived thereof governs and clinches the issue raised in the petition. No criminal negligence since is established to attract offence under section 304(A) of IPC qua the petitioner, FIR should be quashed.
3.2. Mainly, on above submission, it is submitted to allow the petition.
4. Per contra, learned APP Mr.Dave submits that FSL report indicates that gas bottle lying in the house, not damage due to blast in house, no LPG leakage from gas bottle found which supports other theory that gas leakage from pipeline of Gujarat Gas having been damaged during excavation work has resulted in blast in house on plot No.177. He submits that the petitioner may not be directly involved in the commission of offence but he was supposed to supervise excavation work and it was his duty. It is further submitted that since blast took place due to failure of requisite care during excavation of earth, the petitioner, whose duty was to supervise the work, could be attributed role in commission of offence, as there is a lack of duty. It is submitted that FIR may not be quashed believing that it is abuse of process of law.
5. I have heard learned advocates for both sides and also considered documents produced by parties including judgment and decree delivered in Special Civil Suit No.530 of 2016. FIR demonstrates sorry state of affairs. Five persons have lost lives as blast took place within house constructed on plot No.177.
Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:21:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1097/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined According to FIR, there was leakage of gas from pipeline of Gujarat Gas and travelled to house constructed on plot No.177 through the gutar line and later on, it turned into flames which took lives of five persons. This is heart wrenching incident, in which five persons have lost lives. In such issue, Court always feel pain and agony for deceased, who have lost their lives for no reasons, but the centric issue is whether blast was due to gas leakage from pipeline of Gujarat Gas pursuant to excavation work carried out by the Contractor of Surat Municipal Corporation on the previous day.
6. Apt to note that legal representatives of deceased have filed Special Civil Suit No.530 of 2016 under law of tort to recover compensation of Rs.2,62,00,000/- with interest.
7. In Special Civil Suit No.530 of 2016, learned Trial Court framed issue No.2 from rival pleadings. The issue is answered in negative. The said issue reads as under :-
(2) Whether plaintiffs prove that the due to defendants negligence accident (blast) took place ? (Ans : Negative)
8. Reason for answering issue No.2 in the negative runs from para 44, 45, 46 and 47. Finding since is governing the issue raised in the petition, it deserves to be noticed. It reads as under :-
"44) The maxim res ipsa loquiture is squarely applied to the case on hand. It is the case of plaintiff that gas of Gujarat Gas Company was escaped from the pipelines which were Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:21:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1097/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined damaged during the excavation for the installation of watter connection made by defendant No.1 and N.2 but his own witnesses who are the resident of the are and well aware of the day to day situation of the locality. Plaintiff alleged the accumulation of huge gas as to cause four blast in a house but his own witness denied that natural gas does not have quality of blast. As per the report of FSL there was 100% existence of gas near earthing pipes situated outside house but the same 85% existence of gas near earthing pipes of neighbor house but it did not have even a smell or any adverse incidence. As per the admission given by the witnesses of plaintiff if such kind of huge gas were accumulated in the house then it might be odor so bad that o one was able to stand in the house but as per the Dying Declaration of Ex.72, the Sakshi Arvindbhai gave the statement before Executive Magistrate Surat that she was sleeping in the room situated inner side of house. It is not the case of plaintiff that Arvindbhai and his family entered in the house and made spark and caused immediate fire in the house but the situation is arisen in the way that Sakshi was sleeping in the house.
(45) The court is well aware of the principal of absolute liability but there is also a principle of act of third party and principal of res ipsa loquitur and rebuttal nature of evidence applicable in the cases of this nature. On considering above all the discussion with the decisions cited at different juncture, it is cleared that death of family members caused due to blast but the negligence of defendants is not reveled from the evidence but the evidence shows some other situation which is tried to hide. Following explanations are necessary before casing absolute liability of defendant No.3 and No.4.
1. What was the reasons for three to four blast as the alleged natural gas is lighter than air and it may escape in open place as found the place ?
2. What was the reasons that whole articles of house cased burn and damaged due to blast but the highly inflammable article like gas cylinders and rubber tubes of gas did not have any effect on it as it were highly sensitive items of house ?
3. What was the reason of non having any odor of gas by Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:21:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1097/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined the persons residing in upper story as having same drainage connection with accidental house ?
4. What was the reason of non having any odor by any family members of house despite of having these kinds of allege higher accumulation of natural gas in their house ?
(46) The plaintiff side is totally silent on the questions and probability forwarded by defendants side and admitted by their own witnesses. Learned advocate of plaintiff argued to believe deposition of witness deposed at Ex.117 but on the same time he denied the contention of witness admitted in his crossexamination. It is not the rule that the deposition only helpful to the plaintiff should be believed and other portion which is admitted the theory of defendants should be rejected as it is the witness of plaintiff side. The death of family members are due to the blast but the blast was not caused due to negligence of defendants.
(47) The conclusion on the issue No.2 is very difficult for me. One side there is a lost of five lives and other side the balance of justice. The FSL report is not reliable as it contains hearsay statements of neighbors rather than the scientific data. There was a war between mind and heart. But at this juncture the wording of Hon'ble Justice J.B. Pardiwala declared in case of Girishbhai Maganlal Pandya Vs. State Of Gujarat reported in LAWS(GJH)20153108 Decided on March 23, 2015 was reminded in my mind. Hon'ble Justice held that "Dictating this judgment was a very painful experience. The very thought of a four year old child getting crushed beneath the tyres of his own school bus makes my heart bleed with pain and agony. I can also imagine the pain and agony the parents of the deceased must be undergoing even as on today. However, such thoughts should not allow the mind of a judge to get boggled, otherwise justice cannot be done. However, harsh one may find the law, but at the same time, the law remains the law and it has got to be respected. Thus, the decision on issue No.2 is given in negative and decision on issue No.3 is given partly in affirmative as death affirmed but not due to negligency of defendants."
9. Finding being crystal clear indicates that blast did not took Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:21:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1097/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined place due to gas leakage from pipeline of Gujarat Gas pursuant to excavation work carried out on previous day of incident.
10. So far as role of the petitioner is concerned, he is Junior Engineer in Surat Municipal Corporation. He was tasked to supervise Excavation work on 19.01.2014. Excavation work was completed. However, during excavation work, which was carried by Contractor Mr.Zala through JCB Machine operator Mr.Gunjan it damaged three gas pipelines of Gujarat Gas but those were repaired before 4:00 in the evening and persons from Gujarat Gas having completed their repairing work went from the spot. Blast took place on the next date in the house constructed on plot No.177, which is quite away from Excavation work. It is noticeable that after completing Excavation work, pits were filled by the earth. According to theory propagated in FIR, gas was leaked from pipeline and travelled to house constructed on plot No.177 through guter line. However, even as per general knowledge it is quite impossible. Even learned Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence, held that gas could evaporates in sky and since it is LPG gas, it smell foul and can be smelled by any person but could not travel through gutter line and through particular route to reach the house on plot no.177. It can spread in all other houses where gutter line opens. Prosecution also failed to show why gas travelled only to plot No.177, which was alleged to have been leaked from public place. Learned Trial Court has raised various questions in this regards in its judgment. Finding of learned Trial Court arrived after appreciating the evidence certainly governs decision on this petition and clinches the issue.
Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:21:56 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1097/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined
11. In aforesaid circumstances, though Court is in full of sympathy for death of five persons but could not bogged down, to divert its decision to feeling. The Court has to ascertain facts and apply principle of law to find out the outcome which may be harsh but has to be accepted.
12. At this juncture, I may refer to the relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335].
"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 give 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.
(1) 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. (2) 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.
(3) 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 Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:21:56 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/1097/2014 ORDER DATED: 17/09/2025 undefined a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) 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.
(6) 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 redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) 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."
12.1. In view of above, allowing FIR into trial would be abuse of process of law. The petition deserves consideration.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. Impugned FIR being I-C.R.No.37 of 2014 registered with Udhna Police Station, Surat and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) SATISH Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by SATISH C. VEMULLA(HC00206) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 04:21:56 IST 2025