Holding

The Court quashed and set aside the FIR against the NHAI officials, holding that the statutory immunity and absence of criminal negligence preclude any criminal liability.

Summary

The de facto complainant filed an FIR alleging that his wife's death resulted from a pothole on a National Highway, invoking Sections 304 and 304A IPC against officials of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The respondents sought to quash the FIR, arguing that the NHAI officials are protected by Section 28 of the NHAI Act and that no direct contractual responsibility for road maintenance existed. The State argued that a prima facie case of negligence existed and that the applications were not maintainable. The Court examined the scope of Section 482 CrPC, the Bhajan Lal categories, and the four‑step test from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, finding no evidence of criminal negligence or breach of duty. It held that the statutory immunity and lack of culpable conduct barred the FIR, and consequently quashed and set aside the FIR for the applicants.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR under Sections 304 and 304A IPC can be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Whether the NHAI officials are protected by statutory immunity under Section 28 of the NHAI Act.
Whether the elements of criminal negligence required for Sections 304/304A are satisfied.
Whether the applications for quashing are maintainable in the personal capacity of the public servants.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 197, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 304, s. 304A
National Highways Act, 1956s. 8A
National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988s. 14, s. 27, s. 28

Subjects

Section 482 CrPCquashing FIRstatutory immunityNHAI Actpublic servant protectioncriminal negligenceIPC 304IPC 304ABhajan Lal doctrine

Judgment

R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET
ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 8514 of 2022
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 16095 of 2022

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
================================================
PROJECT DIRECTOR , PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT,
PALANPUR, K.P.S. CHAUHAN & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================
Appearance:
NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2
MR VIVEK V BHAMARE(6710) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR VN BHAMARE(1122) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KM ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 17/06/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. These applications under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure

Page 1 of 12
R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

Code, 1973 (the Code) are filed seeking to quash the FIR being C.R.
No. 11217036210888 of 2021, registered with Varahi Police Station,
Dist.: Patan for the offences punishable under Sections 304 and
304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. As both the matters arise out of the same FIR, the same came
to be heard together and are being decided by this common
judgment.

3. Succinctly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on
30.12.2021, the de facto complainant along with his wife, was going
on a motorcycle from Sami to Varahi village on national highway
and when reached near Sadpura village at about 4:00 p.m. in
evening, one truck was moving ahead of them. While so,
suddenly, a pothole was found on the road. The de facto
complainant slowed down his motorcycle, however, as the pothole
was big, they both fell from motorcycle due to which, his wife
sustained serious injuries. She was immediately rushed to the
hospital, however, she was declared brought dead. Hence, the
grieved husband filed the FIR in question for the death of his wife
due to pothole on the road, against the responsible persons of the
National Highways Authority of India.

4. Heard, learned advocate Mr. Maulik Nanavati for the
applicants in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8514 of 2022, learned
advocate Mr. Ashish M. Dagli for the applicant in Criminal Misc.

Page 2 of 12
R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

Application No. 16095 of 2022, learned advocate Mr. Vivek
Bhamre for the respondent No. 2 – de facto complainant and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent – State.

4.1 The bone contention of the learned advocate for the
applicants is that the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
present applicants are not at all satisfied.

4.2 The learned advocate for the applicants in Criminal Misc.
Application No. 8514 of 2022 would submit that the applicants are
the Government servants and by virtue of Section 28 of the
National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988 (NHAI Act),
protection is granted to its officers for the acts done by them in
discharge of their official duties and owing to such a bar, the FIR
in question is not sustainable against them under the law. It is also
submitted that prosecution of the applicants is barred by Section
197 of the Code as there is no proposal by the investigating agency
to the competent authority for according sanction to prosecute the
applicant in their official capacity as public servants.

5. So far as applicant in Criminal Misc. Application No. 16095
of 2022, it is submitted by the learned advocate appearing on his
behalf that no direct contract for the road work was given to the
present applicant and a sub-contract was given for repairing and
maintenance. It is submitted that so far as the place where the
incident had occurred, no repairing and/or maintenance work was

Page 3 of 12
R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

undertaken by the applicant nor any work order has been issued
to him relating to the same. Further, the guarantee period of six
months of the original contractor was also over. Further, the
applicant has no direct dealing with the NHAI.

6. Making such submissions, it is urged that present FIR qua the
applicants may be quashed and set aside as no prima facie case is
made out against the present applicants.

7. As against that, the learned advocate for the respondent No.
2 - de facto complainant would submit that so far as the applicants
of Criminal Misc. Application No. 8514 of 2022 are concerned, the
applications are not maintainable at all in view of the fact that they
have moved this Court under Section 482 of the Code in official
capacity and not in the personal capacity. Accordingly, it is urged
that only on that ground, the applications are not maintainable.

7.1 However, he would further submit that as per the settled
law of the land, inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code
should be used sparingly and with a view to curb the abuse of
process of law. He submitted that in the case on hand, a prima facie
case is made out against the applicants inasmuch as, on account of
sheer negligence, the wife of the de facto complainant has died. He
submitted that as the road was not repaired/maintained, which
was the responsibility of the applicants and due to pothole on the
same, death of wife of the de facto complainant has occurred due to

Page 4 of 12
R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

felling down from the motorcycle and hence, he requested that it is
ultimately a matter of trial after which, the truth could be churned
out and hence, these applications may not be entertained and they
urged to be dismissed.

8. Heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned
advocates for the parties and carefully gone through the material
placed on record.

8.1 Dealing first with the threshold challenge raised by the de
facto complainant regarding maintainability, this Court finds this
preliminary objection to be entirely devoid of legal merit. A bare
perusal of the cause-title reveals that while the official
designations of the applicants are mentioned, their specific
individual names have been clearly articulated alongside. The
mere sequence or syntax of names in the cause-title cannot change
the character of the petition from an individual seeking personal
relief against criminal liability into an unauthorized institutional
application. The objection is, accordingly, turned down.

9. Prior to assessing the factual matrix on the touchstone of
criminal jurisprudence, it is apposite to reinforce the settled legal
position governing the scope, ambit, and limits of the inherent
jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Code. The
jurisprudential parameters regulating the exercise of this
extraordinary power have been authoritatively catalogued by

Page 5 of 12
R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

Hon’ble Supreme Court in a long line of precedents, chief among
them being the authoritative in the case of State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal [AIR 1992 SC 604]. Therein, Hon’ble Supreme Court
crystallized seven distinct, illustrative categories of cases where
judicial intervention under Section 482 of the Code or Article 226
of the Constitution is necessitated to secure the ends of justice and
clip any abuse of the process of Court. The relevant portion of
Paragraph 102 of the said judgment is extracted below:

“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.

(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

Page 6 of 12
R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

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 a case against the accused.

(4) 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.

(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.”

9.1 Evaluating the present applications on the anvil of the
principles enunciated in Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court has to
determine whether the allegations in the FIR, even when accepted

Page 7 of 12
R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

at face value, satisfy the essential statutory ingredients of Sections
304 and 304A of the IPC. This Court must ensure that criminal
machinery is not permitted to degenerate into an engine of
harassment where liability under criminal law is completely
absent.

9.2 The FIR reveals that the unfortunate accident occurred
because a moving truck obstructed the visibility of a pothole on
the National Highway, causing the motorcycle to lose balance,
leading to the tragic death of the de facto complainant's wife.

9.3 Upon balancing the rival contentions and dissecting the
evidentiary record, the following undisputed facts emerge on
record:

i) The applicants in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 8514 of 2022 are public servants under Section 27 of the
NHAI Act and enjoy statutory immunity under Section 28 of
the said Act. Section 28 explicitly provides:

“28. Protection of action taken in good faith.—(1) No suit,
prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the
Authority or any member or officer or employee of the
Authority for anything which is in good faith done or
intended to be done under this Act or the rules or
regulations made thereunder. (2) No suit, prosecution or
other legal proceeding shall lie against the Authority or any
member or officer or employee of the Authority for any
damage caused or likely to be caused by anything which is in

Page 8 of 12
R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or the
rules or regulations made thereunder.”

ii) The applicants in Criminal Miscellaneous Application
No. 8514 of 2022 have power to enter in to contract under
Section 14 of The National Highways Authority of India Act,
1988 more particularly under section 8A of the National
Highways Act, 1956 which gives power to the Central
Government to enter in to an agreement with any person in
relation to the development and maintenance of the whole or
any part of a national highway pursuant to which the
authorised officer have entered in to contract for 1 year with
effect from 13.08.2021 with Shiva Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Thus,
the applicants have acted in good faith and have acted in
accordance with law for the purpose of maintenance of
highway under question where the fateful accident took
place.

iii) here is an absolute lack of material demonstrating any
element of direct, gross, or reckless criminal negligence or
deliberate inaction attributable to the applicants in Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No. 8514 of 2022.

iv) As regards the applicant in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No. 16095 of 2022, no direct contract or specific
Work Order was ever issued in his favor by the principal
authority for the stretch of road where the incident occurred.

Page 9 of 12
R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

v) The learned counsel for the de facto complainant or
Learned APP have failed to bring on record any document or
evidentiary material establishing that the maintenance of the
specific locus of the accident was the legal responsibility of
the applicant in Application No. 16095 of 2022.

vi) The record is completely barren of any evidence
suggesting that the public servants acted with mala fides or
outside the scope of "good faith" performance of duty.

vii) The primary contract for the maintenance of the
highway stretch was executed with a distinct corporate
entity, namely Shiva Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., and not with the
applicant in Application No. 16095 of 2022 nor is there
anything to point out that the applicant was given sub
contract to maintain the stretch of road where the accident
took place due to pothole.

9.4 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v.
State of Uttar Pradesh [AIROnline 2025 SC 956] recently
synthesized the jurisprudence governing Section 482 of the Code
and formulated a strict four-step analytical framework to evaluate
petitions seeking the quashing of criminal trials at their inception.
The framework dictates:

“20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity

Page 10 of 12
R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the
power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC:

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused
is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of
sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the
charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is
sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions
contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn
the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the
accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it
cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would
result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not
serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial
conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such
criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing
justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which
would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial...”

9.5 Applying the aforementioned four-step test to the facts on
hand, the documentary evidence relied upon by the applicants is
of unimpeachable quality and stands entirely unrefuted by
Respondents. Such material cannot be lightly brushed aside by a

Page 11 of 12
R/CR.MA/8514/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/06/2026

Court of law, even at the preliminary stage of quashing.

9.6 In view of the distinct absence of the essential ingredients of
criminal negligence required to attract Sections 304 or 304A of the
IPC, forcing the parties to endure a full-fledged criminal trial
would be an exercise in futility. The controversy falls squarely
within the exceptions carved out in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani
(supra).

10. As a logical conclusion to the detailed discussion above,
these applications succeed and are hereby allowed. First
Information Report bearing C.R. No. 11217036210888 of 2021
registered at Varahi Police Station, District Patan, along with all
consequential criminal proceedings flowing therefrom, stands
quashed and set aside qua the present applicants only.

10.1 Rule is made absolute in the aforementioned terms. Direct
service is permitted.

[ P. M. Raval, J. ]
hiren/12tss17626+

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: HIREN VIRENDRABHAI MER(HC00351), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 17/06/2026 12:34:53

Page 12 of 12