Gujarat High Court
Nitinchandra Somnath Raval vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 February, 2017
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
R/SCR.A/4163/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4163 of 2016
[On note for speaking to minutes of order dated 10/02/2017 in
R/SCR.A/4163/2016 ]
==========================================================
NITINCHANDRA SOMNATH RAVAL....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARTY-IN-PERSON, PERSONAL CAPACITY for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR UMESH A TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 22/02/2017
ORAL ORDER
By this note for speaking to minutes, it has been pointed out that inadvertently the date of the impugned order has been recorded as "2nd November 2001", whereas, the correct date is "2nd November 2007".
The Registry shall carry out the necessary correction in this regard and issue a fresh writ of the order. The note is accordingly disposed of.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.)
aruna
Page 1 of 1
HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 13:37:50 IST 2017
1 of 4
R/SCR.A/4163/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 4163 of 2016 ========================================================== NITINCHANDRA SOMNATH RAVAL....Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s) ========================================================== Appearance:
PARTY-IN-PERSON, PERSONAL CAPACITY for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR UMESH A TRIVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 10/02/2017 ORAL ORDER 1 By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant appearing as a partyinperson calls in question the legality and validity of the order dated 2nd November 2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur, below Exhibit: 59 in the Criminal Case No.853 of 2001.
2 The applicant herein lost four members of his family on account of collapse of the residential building on 26th January 2001. On that fateful day, the State of Gujarat witnessed a massive earthquake rendering thousands of people homeless and claiming lives of hundreds of people across the State of Gujarat. The applicant along with his family was residing on the 7th floor of the multistoried tower. There were, in all, four such buildings of 10Storeys each alleged to have been constructed by the applicant herein along with the accused No.2. Since the applicant was out of town on that date, he could save his life. In all, 98 persons died residing in the four towers. The case of the applicant herein is that the land on which the four towers were constructed was of the Page 1 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 13:37:50 IST 2017
2 of 4 R/SCR.A/4163/2016 ORDER ownership of the applicant herein. He entered into an agreement to put up construction along with the applicant No.2. The original plan was to put up construction upto three floors, but later on, the plan was revised and four buildings of 10Storeys each were constructed. It is the case of the applicant that due to inferior quality of materials used in the construction, the foundation could not sustain the tremors which led to the collapse of all the four buildings. The State filed an F.I.R. at the Satellite Police Station vide C.R. No.I58 of 2001 against the two accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 304, 418, 420 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(c)(d), 7(1)(i)(ii) to 7(2) of the Gujarat Ownership Flats Act, 1973.
3 The investigation ended up with filing of the chargesheet and the filing of the chargesheet culminated in the Criminal Case No.853 of 2001. The original owner of the land preferred an application Exhibit:
59 for discharge. The said application came to be allowed by the learned Magistrate.
4 Being dissatisfied, the applicant, as kith and kin of the victims, has come up with this application.
5 Having heard the applicant appearing in person and the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, apart from the question of locus to challenge the order of discharge, I am of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Magistrate in passing the impugned order. I have also considered the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the applicant appearing in person. I am told that the prosecution against the original builder is still pending. The same shall proceed further in accordance with law. This application is, accordingly, rejected.
Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 13:37:50 IST 2017 3 of 4 R/SCR.A/4163/2016 ORDER (J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) chandresh Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sun Aug 13 13:37:50 IST 2017 4 of 4