IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
GITA GOPI, J.
Anantrai Mohanlal Mehta & Others - Applicants
Versus
State of Gujarat & Others - Respondents
R/Criminal Misc. Application No. 346 of 2015
Decided On : 14-10-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 504, 506(2), 114 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – section 482 – Gujarat Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Section 41-A, 37, 38, 39 – Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 – Sections 36, 37, 39 – Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R. No. I – 153 of 2014 registered with Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code – Held, complainant has suppressed before police concerned of earlier report of police of the same police station, report is after detailed inquiry towards all four complaints of respondent No.2, police had undertaken task of gathering details and evidence, and recording statements of relevant person – Report stated that no offence could be found – Complainant was instructed of steps to be taken by Charity Commissioner, complainant being secretary in trust, he was to move Charity Commissioner who had power and authority to ascertain facts and decide of any offence of breach of trust, and Charity Commissioner’s office could have filed complaint. Such mechanism by inbuilt provision under Gujarat Public Trusts Act is with object to regulate and make better provision for administration of public trust – If such lodging of FIR is allowed without prior sanction of Charity Commissioner then that would lead to a situation where no trust would run for object it proposes to attain – Impugned FIR is abuse of process of law, is hit by the legal bar under Gujarat Public Trusts Act – It can be said that FIR is not bonafide and smacking – Impugned FIR falls under category (f) and (g) of above-referred Bhajanlal’s case (supra) which requires interference of court to exercise discretion under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Application allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. RULE. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Trivedi waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1-State and Mr. Jaivik Uday Bhatt, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. The petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the FIR bearing C.R. No. I – 153 of 2014 registered with Kamlabaug Police Station, Porbandar, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
2.1 The petitioner has stated that earlier too, on the same set of facts and the allegations, the complaint was filed by the respondent No.2, and after inquiry, the Police Inspector of Kamlabaug Police Station, Porbandar, has submitted detailed report on 13.12.2014 and the respondent No.2 was informed about the report vide communication dated 16.12.2014.
3. The FIR dated 28.12.2014 filed by respondent No.2. Arjanbhai Gigabhai Khistariya stated that he was doing the work of agriculture and construction, and since last two and half year, he is serving as a Secretary in Navyug Education Society at Porbandar which is having office at Ghedia School Building, Ravaliya Plot at Porbandar. The petitioner No.1 – Anantrai Mohanlal Mehta is the President of Navyug Education Society, Shri Bhagubhai Devani is the Vice President, Shri Manishbhai Takwani is the secretary of the said trust and petitioner No.2 - Shri Nirav Pareshkumar Mehta is also rendering services as a trustee of the said trust. It has been stated that about six other persons are the Committee Members of the said trust, namely, Shri Kasambhai Yusufbhai Aamdani, Shri Dipak Anantrai Mehta, Shri Rakesh Velji Vithlani, Shri Dharmesh Nathalal, Shri Hasmukh Gokaldas Popat and Shri Premji Kanji. The respondent No.2 states that about eight schools are under Navyug Education Society namely (1) K.H. Madhvani College (2) M.D. Science College (3) Navyug Vidyalaya (4) Lakhani School Science College (5) Baluba Girls School (6) Dedhiya Rajpara School (7) Sagar School and (8) Anant Kuvarba Balmandir, Ghediya School Building, Porbandar. The management of the schools are undertaken by the trustees of the committee.
3.1 The respondent No.2 has alleged that, during his term in service, he had found some irregularities in the management and therefore he had moved application to the concerned authorities. He states that, as per the facts, Kalidas Madhavji died leaving behind no children and his wife, Rambhaben also had no heirs or any children and he has stated that the will of Rambhaben made in the year 1993 does not bear any reference of Navyug Education Society nor there was any agreement of having two trustees as the representatives of the permanent donors, inspite of that fact, it is alleged that Anantrai Mehta and Nirav Mehta - the present petitioners are working as trustees of the said trust, which, as per his belief, is unconstitutional and therefore complainant considers that the trust is running unauthorisedly. The complainant states that he was included in the body of the office bearers but was kept in dark about the irregularities of the said trust. The complainant alleges that the petitioners have committed breach of trust.
3.2 It is alleged that on 31.03.2014 a circular was prepared without informing the complainant, about the meeting to be held on 07.04.2014 at 5:00 clock at Navyug Education Society, Porbandar, for giving honorarium to the trustee. The respondent No.2 has alleged that, in fact, there was no such meeting held on 07.04.2014, nor prior to that no meeting was held by the office bearer, and as per his information, no such resolution was passed of the even date. He alleges that the said circular was placed before him for his signature, but he declined to sign the said circular, as he found that it was against the rules. He also found that the private expenses of the trustees were debited from the account of the trust and the fees which was collected for the d
SupremeToday
The duty of trustees to act in accordance with the law, compliance with statutory provisions, and the need for courts to refrain from interfering with ongoing investigations.
Section 2(13) of the Trusts Act when the petitioner Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and the same is registered for charitable purposes, it is deemed to be a charitable Trus....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a high degree of proof for drastic actions such as removal of trustees under Section 41-D of the Maharashtra Public Trust Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for trustees to adhere to the provisions of the trust scheme and relevant laws, and the importance of a scientific and secular approach in....
The court established that for a suit under Section 92 of the CPC, it is essential to demonstrate a public charitable trust, a breach of trust, and appropriate relief sought, emphasizing the protecti....
The inquiry held by Deputy or Charity Commissioner under Section 19 is by no means an administrative or an executive inquiry The rules framed under the Act called the Bombay Public Trusts Rules 1951 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.