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
| 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
Gold Quest International Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
HDFC Securities Limited and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Another
Indo Asian Limited v. State of Uttarakhand
Lavesh v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Mosiruddin Munshi v. Mohd. Siraj and Another
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal
AI
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.
Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. Considering the allegations made in the c....
The ingredients of the offenses under Sections 405/406/420 IPC are prima facie present in the case, as there was evidence of entrustment of the jewelry, dishonest intention at the time of the transac....
The court affirmed that a party only involved in a civil contract cannot face criminal liability unless it directly transacted or misappropriated funds, supporting the need for a clear distinction be....
Point of law: Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that allegations in a complaint should be accepted at face value at the pre-trial stage, and the trial court should have the opportunity to weigh t....
The Court held that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash a criminal proceeding if it is found that the proceeding is an abuse of the process of the Co....
Point of law : In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the off....
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven at the outset of the agreement, as established in relevant legal precedents.
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.