SC restores cheating case against Mehul Choksi, wife

The FIR in this matter was registered on the complaint of one Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja, who alleged that the respondents “had agreed to return 24 karat pure gold bars for which the consideration or price stood paid, but were in deposit with GJRL (Geetanjali Jewellery Retail Ltd, which is a subsidiary of Choksi’s Gitanjali Gems Ltd) in fiduciary capacity”.

GJRL stated that “the agreements executed” in this connection by its former managing director “were without authority”.

A bench of Justices Sanjeev Khanna and S V N Bhatti, in its order dated November 29, said “there are disputed questions of fact” involved in the matter.

Setting aside the High Court order that quashed the FIR, it said: “We are of the opinion that the said examination and evaluation should not have been done by the High Court.”

The top court refused to go into the issue in detail. “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 Supreme Court noted that the High Court had “accepted” the contention of the respondents that Jadeja “has not accounted and paid for the sale proceeds in terms of the agreement” and that Jadekha had taken exception to this.

The bench added: “Suffice it is to observe that the High Court should not have examined and recorded a conclusion on the disputed fact to quash the FIR.”

On the alleged role of Priti Choksi, the top court said: “We would not like to make any comments as it is only upon investigation that a specific role attributable to her, if any, would be ascertained.”

On the High Court ruling, the Supreme Court said that observations in this order should be read as comments or observations on the merits of the case. It also said that the investigation will continue without being influenced by any observation in the impugned judgement or in the present order.