Gujarat HC refuses to quash 2017 case of cheating against Mehul Choksi alleging diamonds were offered in a scheme for gold coins

When the couple had sought withdrawal from the scheme, they were informed that there is no gold coin and they can purchase diamonds instead.

Other accused in the case are Digvijay Jadeja, then franchisee owner of Divyanirman Jewellers; Mehul Choksi, then managing director of Gitanjali Group; Aniyath Shivraman Nair, director of Gitanjali Group and Chetna Jayantilal Zhaveri, director of Gitanjali Group.

The complainant, Mita Mankad, has passed away since the filing of the complainant. The HC was also told that the dispute was settled between the parties.

Considering that Choksi has numerous complaints against him in his personal capacity as well as against Gitanjali Gems, Justice Sandeep Bhatt observed, “It is clear that… Mehul Choksi has left the country long ago and he is not cooperating with any prosecution, though various complaints are filed against Gitanjali Gems as well as in his individual capacity. Therefore, considering the conduct, present petition is not entertained… as he does not have any respect towards the process of law and such accused cannot be considered for any equitable relief.”

Denying Zhaveri and Nair as well as the franchisee holder any relief and refusing to quash the FIR, the HC said that prima facie, “ingredients of the alleged offences are satisfied” and there is a need to proceed further in regard to the complaint.

The court said, “Prima facie, it is found that after giving false promises through their franchisee, such showrooms are closed down and the customers, who have invested their money, are cheated… the showrooms of the company in respective cities are closed down. It is not the case that at one or two places such incidents have occurred but wherever Gitanjali Gems were having their franchisee, at all such places, such incidents have occurred and people, who have invested money, are cheated.”

It added that money invested by the investors is not refunded and a huge scam is committed. The HC said that the “ultimate liability can be fastened on the shoulders of the persons responsible for the affairs of Gitanjali Gems and petitioners being the directors and actively involved in the management of the company, cannot shirk their responsibility”.

It further said that while merely for being directors, they cannot be held responsible for the criminal act but looking at the nature of the allegations, they cannot escape their liability.