SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Guj) 1317

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
MEHUL CHINUBHAI CHOKSI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 1072 of 2018, Criminal Misc. Application (For Joining Party) No. 1 of 2018, Criminal Misc. Application (For Stay) No. 2 of 2018
Decided On : 11-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SALIL M. THAKORE
For the Respondents: PARAM R. BUCH, CHINTAN DAVE

Directors of a company can be held accountable for criminal breach of trust and cheating if they are found to have participated in fraudulent schemes affecting customers.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 420, and 34 - Quashing of FIR - Petition filed to quash FIR alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating in relation to investment schemes - Allegations against directors of a jewellery company for failing to honor commitments made to customers under a franchisee scheme. (Paras 1-2, 8-12)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent powers of High Court - Principles governing the exercise of inherent powers; courts should be cautious and not hinder investigations unless no case is made out. (Paras 9-11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners are directors of a jewellery retail company accused of misappropriating funds from customers invested in gold and diamond schemes, with the complainant stating she was not provided the promised returns nor her investment back. (Paras 1-2)

Findings of Court:
No case for quashing the FIR was made out as the allegations indicated a prima facie offense; petitioners cannot escape liability as active participants in the company's management. (Paras 12-14)

Issues: Whether prima facie case exists against directors under Sections 406 and 420; relevance of individual roles of directors in the alleged scam. (Paras 8-12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the allegations constituted sufficient grounds for proceeding with the criminal complaint, emphasizing the need for directors to be accountable for their company's actions, especially in cases involving financial schemes impacting the public. (Paras 8-13)

Result: Petition dismissed, with a directive to proceed with the FIR. (Paras 14-15)

Table of Content
1. prayer to quash the fir. (Para 1)
2. details of investment schemes and allegations. (Para 2)
3. aggrieved parties have filed this petition. (Para 3)
4. arguments against prima facie case against petitioners. (Para 4)
5. opposition arguments on petitioners’ responsibility. (Para 5)
6. state supports continuation of proceedings. (Para 6 , 7)
7. court considerations and reflections on fir. (Para 8 , 9)
8. assessment of prima facie case against defendants. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
9. court references to existing law precedents. (Para 13)
10. dismissal of the petition. (Para 14 , 15)

ORDER :

1. Present petition is filed with a prayer to quash and set aside impugned FIR being C.R. No. I-31 of 2017 registered with DCB Police Station, Ahmedabad, on 3.4.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . Present petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 4.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.9.2013, the complainant and her husband had gone to M/s. Gitanjali Jewellers for making purchases and that in the bill given to them, M/s. Divyanirman Jewels, Shop No. 6, Isckon Centre, Shivranjani Crossroads, Satellite, Ahmedabad was written. It is alleged that the persons working in the said showroom informed them about diamond/gold monthly installment schemes and that one installment would be borne by the company. Upon the complainant finding the scheme to be good, the complainant and her husband discussed about investing Rs.5000/- per month in the gold coin scheme for 12 months. Thereupon, a person came to their residence and gave them “Tamanna” card and took Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 2) towards two schemes. Thereafter, till 25.5.2014, a person used to come to the complainant's residence and take Rs.10,000 towards the installments. In July, 2014, the complainant received a telephone call from Gitanjali Jewellers informing that the franchisee has been terminated. Thereupon, the complainant and her husband went to the store and offered to deposit the remaining three installments and inquired if they could get gold coins. Thereupon, they were informed that no gold coins are available but that they can purchase diamonds. The complainant declined to purchase the diamonds and asked for gold coins or return of the installment money. Thereafter, the complainant addressed communications on different e-mail addresses of Gitanjali Group with relevant details of the amount invested by them but these communications were not replied to. Upon further inquiry, it was learnt that the showroom had closed down. It was learnt that the owner of the franchisee M/s. Divyanirman Jewels was one Digvijaysinh Jadeja, however, upon inquiring about him, the complainant did not get any satisfactory answer. It is alleged that the complainant made investment in the scheme on being told that she would get financial benefits from the same. It is alleged that by not giving gold coins and by not returning the investment, the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating have been committed. The accused are Accused No. 1-Digvijay Jadeja (franchisee owner of M/s. Divyanirman Jewellers), Accused No. 2 Mehul Chinubhai Choksi (described as Managing Director of Gitanjali Group), Accused No. 3 Aniyath Shivraman Nair (described as Director of Gitanjali Group) and Accused No. 4 Chetna Jayantilal Zhaveri (described as Director of Gitanjali Group). The F.I.R. is essentially a recovery proceeding in the form of a criminal complaint and is filed for offences under Sections 406 , 420 and 34 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The contents of this paragraph are the allegations made in the F.I.R.

2.1 The petitioners State that Ahmedabad stores referred to in the FIR was run by M/s. Divyanirman Jewels (owned and managed by Accused No. 1-Digvijaysinh Jadeja), franchisee of Gitanjali Jewellery Retail Limited (GJRL) (company of Gitanjali Group that manages the franchisee business). No investment State d to have been made by the complainant has ever been passed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top