| CITATION | 2023 INSC 1045 |
|---|---|
| DATE OF JUDGMENT | 29th November 2023 |
| COURT | Supreme Court of India |
| APPELLANT | DIGVIJAYSINH HIMMATSINH JADEJA |
| RESPONDENT | STATE OF GUJARAT |
| BENCH | Justice Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N Bhatti |
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court recently passed an order relating to a judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The two bench judges held by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N Bhatti held that High Court cannot examine or record conclusion to quash an FIR under section 482 CrpC.
Section 482 of the CrpC pertains to exercising the inherent powers of the High Court. It can be exercised for three main reasons, namely, to make orders necessary to give any effect to any order under the code, to prevent abuse of the powers of the court and to meet the ends of justice.
The court restored the appeal filed against the Gujarat High Court judgment that had quashed a First Information Report (FIR).
FACTS
An Appeal was filed by the appellate for the examination of the common impugned judgment dated 05.05.2017, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) and Special Criminal Application, allowing and accepting the prayer for quashing of First Information Report registered at Police Station Gandhinagar Zone, District – Gandhinagar, Gujarat.
The main dispute was the agreements with the private respondent(s) arguing that these agreements were not binding on the company, Geetanjali Jewellery Retail Limited (GJRL), a subsidiary of Gitanjali Gems Limited.
CONTENTIONS MADE BY APPELLATE
- The learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the appellant claimed that the agreements made on 25.07.2013 and 13.08.2013 was legal and binding.
- The appellant produced the confirmation letter which was signed by Mr. Santosh Srivastava as the Managing Director at respondent company and Mr. Shivendra Singh, Associate Vice-President (Finance), on behalf of respondent company, as well as the statement of accounts, which again is signed by the aforesaid persons.
- It was contended that in terms of the agreement dated 13.08.2013, the private respondent(s) had agreed to return 24 karat pure gold bars for which the consideration or price was paid, but were in deposit with the company in fiduciary capacity.
CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT
- The private respondents contended that the two agreements, are not binding and that the agreements were signed by Mr. Santosh shrivastva who resigned on 09.12.13 so the said agreements were executed by him without authority.
- Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the private respondent(s) was that the appellant – Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja has not accounted and paid for the sale proceeds in terms of the agreement dated 13.08.2013, which has been described as “Operational and Commercial Agreement.”
- It was also contended that there were contradictions emerging in the assertions made in the notice served by the appellant for breach of contract dated 15.07.14 and 23.08.14.
OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE COURT
Court opines that the High Court should not have done the examination and evaluation of the facts. The judges observed that the case should not have been decided since two facts were in dispute.
First dispute was that the learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the appellant claimed that the agreements made on 25.07.2013 and 13.08.2013 was legal and binding. The appellant produced the confirmation letter which was signed by Mr. Santosh Srivastava as the Managing Director at the Respondent Company and Mr. Shivendra Singh, Associate Vice-President (Finance), on behalf of respondent, along with the statement of accounts, which again is signed by the aforesaid persons. The learned counsel also proved the fiduciary capacity between the parties.
The counsel appearing on the behalf of the private respondents contended that the two agreements are not binding and that the agreements were signed by Mr. Santosh Shrivastva who resigned on 09.12.13 so the said agreements were executed by him without authority. It was also contended that there were contradictions emerging in the assertions made in the notice served by the appellant for breach of contract dated 15.07.14 and 23.08.14.
Another contradiction with the facts was the vicarious liability put on Priti Choksi who is the wife of the accused. The contention of the appellant differs from the information given by the private respondents.
JUDGMENT
The court stated that A wrong may be civil wrong, or in a given case be a civil wrong and equally constitute a criminal offence. The ingredients of a criminal offence should be satisfied. ”
The court opined that they should not go into these aspects, as it is a matter to be considered and examined in the investigation.
At this stage, they recorded that pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the investigation had proceeded. The order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the High Court states that 17 persons were examined by the investigating officer(s) and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19734 had been recorded. The High Court notes that statements under Section 164 of the Code were recorded as well. These were not considered.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed in the above terms .Investigation will continue without being influenced by any of the findings or observations made in the impugned judgment or in the present order.
The Investigating officers must keep in mind the ruling of this court and High court to interpret the sections 406,420, 464 and 465 while investigating.
References
- https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/31223/31223_2017_3_101_48659_Judgement_29-Nov-2023.pdf
- Supreme Court restores Cheating Case against Mehul Choksi and his wife | SCC Blog (scconline.com)
- https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/digvijaysinh-himmatsinh-jadeja-v-state-of-gujarat-2023-insc-1045-quashing-of-fir-1507657
This article is written by Mehak Mathur, student of Delhi Metropolitian Education, GGSIP.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments