Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja vs The State Of Gujarat

NON-REPORTABLE 2023 INSC 1045 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3259/2023

DIGVIJAYSINH HIMMATSINH JADEJA ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length.

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) No. 4758 of 2015 and

Special Criminal Application No.4759 of 2015, allowing and

accepting the prayer for quashing of First Information Report1

No.CR I/2/2015 dated 23.01.2015 registered at Police Station

Gandhinagar Zone, District – Gandhinagar, Gujarat, would show that

a detailed factual examination and evaluation has been undertaken.

We are of the opinion that the said examination and evaluation

should not have been done by the High Court. There are disputed

questions of fact, as the private respondent(s) have taken a plea

that the two agreements dated 25.07.2013 and 13.08.2013 are not Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SWETA BALODI

binding on the company – Geetanjali Jewellery Retail Limited2, Date: 2023.12.04 09:43:19 IST Reason:

1 For short “FIR” 2 For short “GJRL” 2

which is a subsidiary of Gitanjali Gems Limited. Learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant – Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh

Jadeja in fact submits that the agreements are valid and binding.

It is also submitted 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 stood paid, but

were in deposit with GJRL in fiduciary capacity.

Learned counsel for the appellant – Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh

Jadeja has also drawn our attention to documents in the form of

confirmation letters, which are signed by Mr. Santosh Srivastava as

the Managing Director at GJRL and Mr. Shivendra Singh, Associate

Vice-President (Finance), on behalf of GJRL, as well as the

statement of accounts, which again is signed by the aforesaid

persons. These documents, it is submitted, confirm the fiduciary

nature of the deposit.

The stand of the private respondent(s) is that Mr. Santosh

Srivastava had resigned on 09.12.2013, and the agreements executed

by him were without authority.

But these assertions noted above are disputed factual

questions. The private respondents have not disputed the signatures

of Mr. Santosh Srivastava or Mr. Shivendra Singh, or their

designation. Some documents are also signed by Mr. Shivendra Singh

The impugned judgment refers to the requirements of Sections

406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 3. We are not examining

the said aspects in detail, as first, facts have to be ascertained,

including the nature and character of the deposit.

3 For short “IPC” 3

We must also take note of the contention raised by the

learned counsel for the private respondent(s) that there are

contradictions emerging in the stand taken by the appellant –

Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja in the notice dated 15.07.2014,

which refers to breach of contract and another notice/letter dated

23.08.2014.

We should not go into these aspects, as it is a matter to be

considered and examined in the investigation. 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. We would refrain to make detailed observations in this

regard, though we have considered the said notice before passing

this order. The contention of the appellant - Digvijaysinh

Himmatsinh Jadeja is that assertions and all allegations have to

read holistically and not in a pedantic manner.

Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the

private respondent(s) is 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.” This

submission on behalf of the private respondent(s) has been accepted

in the impugned judgment.

The appellant – Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja has taken an

exception to the said reasoning on several grounds. One of the

arguments is that the reasoning does not take into account the

specific clause in the agreement dated 13.08.2013, which agreement

in fact accepts the agreement dated 25.07.2013, but does not, in 4

any way, override the fiduciary relationship with respect to the

gold bars. Set off, it is submitted, is not available. Suffice it

is to observe that the High Court should not have examined and

recorded conclusion on the disputed fact to quash the FIR. At this

stage, we record 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 had been 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 had also been

recorded. These were not considered.

Our attention is drawn to paragraph 49 of the impugned

judgment, with specific reference to respondent – Priti Mehul

Choksi. We believe that these observations are general observations

to the effect that a wife/spouse could not be said to be involved

vicariously. The appellant – Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja submits

to the contrary. We would not like to make any comments as it is

only upon investigation, that a specific role attributable to

respondent – Priti Mehul Choksi, if any, would be ascertained.

In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment is set aside

and the appeal is allowed in the above terms.

The observations in this order will not be read as comments

or observations on the merits of the case. Investigation will

continue without being influenced by any of the findings or

observations made in the impugned judgment or in the present order.

We also clarify that while conducting the investigation, the

4 For short “Code” 5

Investigating Officer(s) will keep in mind the rulings of this

Court and High Courts interpreting Sections 406, 420, 464 and 465

etc. of the IPC.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..................J. (SANJIV KHANNA)

..................J. (S.V.N. BHATTI) NEW DELHI;

NOVEMBER 29, 2023.