Gujarat High Court: In an application filed by a female monk, Sadhviji Jayshrigiri Guru Jagdishgiri (‘Sadhvi’), seeking quashing of FIR and proceedings filed against her under Sections 4061, 4202, and 506(1)3 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of J. C. Doshi, J., dismissed the application, holding that considering the incomplete and hazy facts coming from the record indicated that further investigation was required in the matter. Further, considering that the total amount that was duped as per the FIR was around Rs. 5 Crores, the Court stated that it was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 4824 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’).
Background
The first informant’s land was acquired by Gujarat Housing Board, but he wanted it to be cleared and released. Allegedly, Sadhvi assured the complainant that she was acquainted with the officers and would get the land cleared. For this purpose, the first informant gave Rs. 1.25 Crores to Sadhvi. However, when after a long time no action was taken, the first informant approached Sadhvi, but she refused to meet him and later he was threatened with dire consequences.
Aggrieved, the complainant filed an FIR against the Sadhvi. Hence, the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
Regarding the Court’s power under Section 482 CrPC, the Court referred Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein the Court stated that the powers possessed by the Court under Section 482 of CrPC are very wide and very plentitude and require great caution in their exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in the exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution,but the Court’s failingto use the power for the advancement of justice can also lead to grave injustice. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where all the facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of such magnitude that they cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material.
Upon perusal of the complaint as well as Sections 405 and 415 of the IPC, the Court stated that it was a case of duping of crores of rupees whereby by giving false promises, Sadhvi had taken up around 16.200 Kg gold worth Rs. 5.2 Crores from the first informant and then vanished. On bare perusal of the FIR, the Court stated that there was a criminal breach of trust as the first informant entrusted 16.200 Kg of gold to Sadhvi, which she ran away with, without paying. The Court also noted that there were 10 identical FIRs lodged against Sadhvi.
Considering the facts, particularly that 10 identical cases were filed against Sadhvi, the Court opined that she had failed to present a case in which the Court should exercise inherent power. The incomplete and hazy facts in the record indicated that further investigation was required in the matter.
Further considering that the total amount which was duped as per the FIR was around Rs. 5 Crores, the Court stated that it was not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
The Court stated that it could not be said, at this juncture, that lame prosecution had been launched against Sadhvi. The very nature of the material available on which the FIR rests, prima facie, justified the allegations. The Court further stated that it could not be said that filing of FIR against Sadhvi was an abuse of the process of law. The record disclosed the commission of the cognizable offence, and prima facie, the ingredients of offences were satisfied. Therefore, such criminal proceedings could not be quashed merely because some civil wrongs were also attracted. In this regard, the Court referred to Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander (2012) 9 SCC 460.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application, stating that there was no reason to scuttle the FIR at the initial stage.
[Sadhviji Jayshrigiri Guru Jagdishgiri v. State of Gujarat, CMA No. 5098 of 2017, decided on 19-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the applicant: BM Mangukiya and Bela A Prajapati
For the respondent: Akash N Shah, Kalrav R Patel, and Addl. Public Prosecutor Manan Maheta
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
2. Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
3. Section 351(2)/(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
4. Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
