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 Report 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 binding on the company – Geetanjali Jewellery Retail Limited, 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.
xxx
WRONG MAY BE BOTH CIVIL AND CRIMINAL WRONG
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.
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.
xxx
INVESTIGATION OFFICER SHOULD KEEP IN MIND ALL THE RULINGS WHILE INVESTIGATION
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 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.
PARTY: DIGVIJAYSINH HIMMATSINH JADEJA ….. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ….. RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3259/2023 – 2023 INSC 1045 – NOVEMBER 29, 2023
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/31223/31223_2017_3_101_48659_Judgement_29-Nov-2023.pdf
