Incomplete & Hazy Facts; Further Probe Required: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Sadhvi Accused Of Cheating Man Of ₹1.25 Cr
The accused namely Sadhviji Jayshrigiri Guru Jagdishgiri filed an Application before the Gujarat High Court, seeking to quash an FIR under Sections 406, 420, and 506(1) of IPC.
Justice J.C. Doshi, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has refused to quash an FIR against a Sadhvi (female spiritual leader/monk) who was accused of cheating a man for a sum of Rs. 1.25 crores.
The accused Sadhvi namely Sadhviji Jayshrigiri Guru Jagdishgiri filed an Application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking to quash an FIR registered against her for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi remarked, “Looking to all these facts and more particularly the fact that ten identical cases have been lodged against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to put a case where the Court should exercise inherent power. The incomplete and hazy facts coming from the record indicates that further investigation is required in the matter. Total amount which is duped as per the FIR is Rs.5,02,20,000/-. So looking to these facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction.”
Advocate B.M. Mangukiya appeared for the Applicant/Accused while APPs Soham Joshi, Manan Maheta, and Advocate Kalrav Patel appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
As per the Complainant’s case, land of friend of first informant was acquired by Gujarat Housing Board and he wanted to see that land is cleared and released from Gujarat Housing Board. It was alleged that the Applicant-accused gave an assurance that she has political acquaintance and acquaintance with the officers and she would see to it that land is cleared. It was further alleged that the informant gave Rs. 1.25 Crores to the accused.
However, since after passage of time, when no action was taken, the informant approached the accused but she under different pretext, did not meet him and thereafter, he was given threats of dire consequences. As a result, the Complainant filed an FIR against the accused. Consequently, the accused sought to quash the said FIR and further proceedings before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “What could be noticed that it is case of duping of huge amount which runs into crores of rupees whereby by giving false promises, the petitioner has taken up around 16.200 Kg gold from the first informant and then the first informant was taken to Ahmedabad under the promise that she will pay the amount of the gold at the said place and then also she made the first informant to sit at a particular place and told that she will pay the amount within short span. From this stage, the petitioner vanished. Thereafter, they did not turn back and as such duped gold around 16.200 Kg worth of Rs.5,20,00,000/- from the first informant.”
The Court further noted that overall, ten identical FIRs are lodged against the accused an on bare perusal of the FIR, it indicates that there is criminal breach of trust. It added that prima facie ingredients of criminal breach of trust defined under Section 405 of IPC as well as Section 415 i.e., deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly are attracted in this case.
“Upon the trust given by the petitioner, the first informant has entrusted 16.200 Kg of gold to the petitioner Sadhavi and then she took the gold and run away with 16.200 Kg of gold. She has deceived the first informant fraudulently and dishonestly and got delivery of 16.200 Kg of gold and did not pay the amount for the same”, it also noted.
The Court was of the opinion that at this juncture, it cannot be said that lame prosecution has been launched against the accused as the very nature of the material available on which the FIR rests, prima facie justifies the allegations.
“It cannot be said that filing of FIR against the petitioner is abuse of process of law. The record discloses commission of the cognizable offence and prima facie ingredients of offences are satisfied and therefore, such criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely because some civil wrongs are also attracted”, it emphasised.
The, therefore, Court concluded that there is no reason to scuttle the FIR at the initial stage.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application and refused to quash the FIR against the accused.
Cause Title- Sadhviji Jayshrigiri Guru Jagdishgiri v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:17048)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocates B.M. Mangukiya and Bela A Prajapati.
Respondents: APPs Soham Joshi, Manan Maheta, Advocates Kalrav Patel, and Akash N. Shah.
