LI Network
Published on: October 12, 2023 at 12:15 IST
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a petition filed by fugitive businessman Mehul Choksi, in which he sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him for allegedly defrauding a woman through a franchisee associated with his company, Gitanjali Jewellery.
Justice Sandeep N Bhatt, in his ruling, dismissed Choksi’s plea. Mehul Choksi, who was then the chairman and managing director of Gitanjali Gems, is a wanted accused in the infamous Rs 13,000-crore Punjab National Bank fraud case.
The judge noted that there was a prima facie case of criminal breach of trust and cheating against Choksi and others, and therefore, the FIR could not be quashed.
In 2017, the city crime branch registered the FIR following a complaint from a woman who had invested money through a Gitanjali Jewellery franchisee. Unfortunately, the franchisee closed down, resulting in the loss of her investment.
Choksi’s lawyer argued that Gitanjali Jewellery Retail Limited (GJRL), a Gitanjali Group subsidiary managing the franchisee business, failed to transfer the complainant’s investment. Additionally, Jadeja did not return the jewelry belonging to GJRL or forward the sale proceeds.
Choksi’s lawyer also claimed that the matter had been resolved between the petitioners and the complainant, as she expressed in a letter dated August 25, 2017, her desire not to pursue criminal proceedings.
However, the High Court did not accept this defense.
The court noted that it was evident that false promises were made through franchisees, after which the showrooms were closed, and customers who had invested their money were cheated.
The court observed that such cases were not isolated incidents but were widespread wherever Gitanjali Gems had franchisees.
While acknowledging that mere directorship did not necessarily imply responsibility for criminal acts, the court emphasized that given the nature of the allegations and the large-scale scam associated with Gitanjali Gems across the country, the petitioners could not escape liability at this stage.
