Gitanjali Jewellery Fraud Case: Gujarat HC Dismisses Mehul Choksi’s Plea to Quash FIR

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a petition filed by fugitive businessman Mehul Choksi, who sought to quash a First Information Report (FIR) registered against him for allegedly defrauding a woman through a franchisee of his firm Gitanjali Jewellery.

A single bench of Justice Sandeep N Bhatt has rejected Choksi’s plea. Choksi was the former chairman and managing director of Gitanjali Gems and is currently a wanted accused in the Rs 13,000-crore Punjab National Bank (PNB) fraud case.

The judge stated that prima facie, a case of criminal breach of trust and cheating has been established against Choksi and others. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed.

The FIR was registered by the city crime branch in 2017 following a complaint from a woman. She claimed that she had invested money through a Gitanjali Jewellery franchisee, but the franchisee ceased operations, resulting in the loss of her investment.

The accused in the case include Digvijay Jadeja, the owner of the franchisee Divyanirman Jewellers, Mehul Choksi in his capacity as the managing director of Gitanjali Group, and two directors of Gitanjali Group.

Choksi’s defense argued that Gitanjali Jewellery Retail Limited (GJRL), a Gitanjali Group firm responsible for managing the franchisee business, did not transfer the investment made by the complainant to them. Moreover, Jadeja did not return the jewelry belonging to GJRL or forward the sale proceeds to the company.

According to the defense, the matter was settled between the petitioners and the complainant. The complainant conveyed in a letter dated August 25, 2017, that she did not wish to pursue the criminal proceedings.

However, the High Court did not accept this defense. It noted that prima facie evidence suggested that false promises were made through Gitanjali’s franchisees, leading to the closure of these showrooms and financial losses for customers who had invested their money. The court observed that such cases were not isolated incidents but had occurred in numerous places where Gitanjali Gems operated franchisees.

While acknowledging that merely holding directorial positions does not automatically make individuals liable for criminal acts, the court emphasized that given the nature of the allegations in this case and the large-scale scam involving Gitanjali Gems across the country, the petitioners cannot evade their liability at this stage.