2023 (11) TMI 1453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Animesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Parv K Garg, Adv. ORDER We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. The examination of the common impugned judgment dated 05.05.2017, passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 4758 of 2015 and Special Criminal Application No.4759 of 2015, allowing and accepting the prayer for quashing of First Information Report [For short "FIR"] No.CR I/2/2015 dated 23.01.2015 registered at Police Station Gandhinagar Zone, District - Gandhinagar, Gujarat, would show that a detailed factual examination and evaluation has been undertaken. We are of the opinion that the said examination and evaluation should not have been d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eir designation. Some documents are also signed by Mr. Shivendra Singh. The impugned judgment refers to the requirements of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [For short "IPC"]. We are not examining the said aspects in detail, as first, facts have to be ascertained, including the nature and character of the deposit. We must also take note of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the private respondent(s) that there are contradictions emerging in the stand taken by the appellant - Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja in the notice dated 15.07.2014, which refers to breach of contract and another notice/letter dated 23.08.2014. We should not go into these aspects, as it is a matter to be considered and examined i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stration of the FIR, the investigation had proceeded. The order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the High Court states that 17 persons had been examined by the investigating officer(s) and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [For short "Code"] had been recorded. The High Court notes that statements under Section 164 of the Code had also been recorded. These were not considered. Our attention is drawn to paragraph 49 of the impugned judgment, with specific reference to respondent - Priti Mehul Choksi. We believe that these observations are general observations to the effect that a wife/spouse could not be said to be involved vicariously. The appellant - Digvijaysinh Himmatsinh Jadeja submits to the contrary. We ....