The Supreme Court recently intervened in a significant legal development, overturning a 2017 Gujarat High Court judgment that had quashed an FIR against businessman Mehul ChinubhaiChoksi, a prime accused in the PNB loan scam who fled India in 2017. The FIR, registered by the Ahmedabad Police in 2015, alleged offences including criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and conspiracy based on a complaint filed by Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja. Jadeja accused Choksi’scompany of failing to return gold bars valued at Rs. 30 crores and purported misappropriation, violating their agreement. Choksi’s wife, Priti, was also implicated in the case.
The Gujarat High Court had quashed the FIR, contending that the complaint primarily pertained to a civil breach of contract rather than constituting a criminal offence. However, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, reversed this decision. The apex court observed that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by delving into factual controversies.
Highlighting the significance of the case, the Supreme Court stressed that the High Court should not have determined disputed facts conclusively to quash the FIR. It emphasized the possibility that a wrongdoing could concurrently entail both a civil wrong and a criminal offence. The Court refrained from a detailed examination of the contested aspects, recognizing them as subjects for factual determination during due process.
In the course of the legal proceedings, Choksi contended that the agreements in question were not legally binding on GeetanjaliJewellery Retail Limited (GJRL), a subsidiary of Gitanjali Gems Limited. Conversely, the appellant argued that these agreements were indeed valid and binding.
Acknowledging the contested nature of these arguments, the Supreme Court abstained from a comprehensive examination, noting that these were disputed factual questions. The Court remarked that factual details, including the deposit’s nature and character, needed thorough clarification, a determination not appropriate during the present phase of proceedings.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court expressed reservations regarding a particular observation made by the High Court. The High Court, in para 49 of its judgment, had remarked that PritiMehul Choksi, as the wife of another appellant, should not be held responsible via vicarious liability.
The Supreme Court clarified that these observations were general in nature and that the specific role of Priti Mehul Choksiwould only be established through the investigation. It emphasized that these observations did not reflect on the case’s merits and that specific roles, if any, would be ascertained through the investigative process.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and directed the continuation of the investigation, ensuring that its observations in the current order would not influence the ongoing probe. The Court underscored that these observations did not reflect on the case’s merits and reiterated that the investigation should proceed uninfluenced by any previous or current orders.
These offences are distinct but may sometimes overlap in criminal activities. They aim to deter fraudulent and deceptive actions, ensuring accountability for dishonest dealings and unethical practices. The provisions under these sections of the IPC safeguard against breaches of trust, financial frauds, deceptive actions, and collusive efforts to commit illegal acts.
It’s essential to note that each offence has specific elements and proofs required for conviction. The severity of punishment depends on the seriousness of the offence, the extent of deceit or breach of trust, and the resulting impact on the victim or society. These laws aim to uphold integrity, protect property rights, and maintain public trust in legal and financial dealings while penalizing those engaging in fraudulent or conspiratorial activities.
The case, titled ”DIGVIJAYSINH HIMMATSINH JADEJA vs. THE STATE OF GUJARAT,” registered under Diary No. 31223-2017, signifies the Supreme Court’s stance on the matter. This decision reinforces the necessity of impartial investigations to determine specific roles and responsibilities in allegations while ensuring that judicial observations during preliminary proceedings do not prejudge culpability.