Gujarat High Court
Pramod Dwarkadas Vithalani vs State Of Gujarat on 21 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 09/07/2025
Pronounced On : 21/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 787 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
PRAMOD DWARKADAS VITHALANI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR. ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition filed under section 482 of the CRPC petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-
"A.That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit this petition.
B) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ and thereby quash and set aside the impugned order passed by learned 9th (Adhoc) District Judge, Vadodara camp at Chhotaudepure dated 11.3.2013 passed in Criminal Revision Appln.No.210 of 2012 and all other consequential proceedings thereto.
B(1) This Hon'ble court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned complaint being C R NO. I 50/2013 registered with Gotri Police Station at Vadodara in the interest of justice. Page 1 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined B(2) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon ble court may be pleased to stay further proceedings of the impugned complaint being C R NO. I 50/2013 registered with Gotri Police Station at Vadodara till pending in the interest of justice. C) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to grant stay as to implementation, execution and operation of the impugned judgment and order passed by learned 9th (Adhoc) District Judge, Vadodara camp at Chhotaudepure dated 11.3.2013 passed in Criminal Revision Appln. No.210 of 2012 and further be pleased to stay further proceedings of any such FIR if registered before Gotri police station in pursuant to the order passed by learned 9th (Adhoc) District Judge, Vadodara camp at Chhotaudepure dated 11.3.2013 passed in Crimial Revision Appln.No.210 of 2012."
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
2. The petitioner, Dr. P.D. Vithalani, a government medical officer and former Dean of multiple medical colleges in Gujarat, is alleged to have engaged in large-scale financial and administrative misconduct. The complainant, Dr. Amal Bhattacharya, an Associate Professor in the Health and Family Welfare Department, submitted a detailed written complaint supported by documents obtained under the Right to Information Act. It is alleged that the petitioner used forged documents to unlawfully promote unqualified individuals, including Dr. Deval Vora, Dr. Falguniben Chudasama, and Dr. Kamlesh Shah, into Class-I positions, thereby facilitating their appointment as Associate Professors without the requisite Page 2 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined teaching experience, resulting in significant financial loss to the public exchequer.
2.1. The complaint further alleges that Dr. Vithalani issued false teaching experience certificates, misused his official position to reinstate dismissed officials, and facilitated illegal appointments in contravention of government norms. Additionally, he is accused of shielding erring doctors from disciplinary proceedings for private practice and tampering with official records to suppress evidence of misconduct. These acts allegedly enabled unlawful enrichment and caused administrative impropriety within medical education institutions.
2.3. Moreover, it is alleged that Dr. Vithalani played a central role in irregular procurement of medical equipment worth approximately ₹550 crores, involving inflated bills, bogus transactions, and embezzlement of public funds. It is also claimed that while serving as Medical Superintendent at Guru Gobind Singh Hospital, Jamnagar, the petitioner failed to deposit personal electricity dues, which were instead paid from government funds. The cumulative effect of the above irregularities led the complainant to file a criminal complaint, resulting in the present petition. SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:-
Page 3 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined
3. Learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda, appearing along with learned Advocate Mr. Praveen Gondaliya for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Court below, more particularly the Sessions Court, has committed a serious and gross error in directing registration of FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was further submitted that the private complaint filed before the Court below is a consequence of personal animosity and vindictiveness harbored by the first informant against the petitioner. The complainant, who is an Associate Professor at a medical college, was suspended on account of misconduct. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda further submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR registered against the petitioner indicates that it is nothing but an attempt to wreak personal vengeance and to settle personal scores arising out of a strained relationship between the complainant and the petitioner. 3.1. The petitioner, who holds the position of Dean at the medical college, is being targeted maliciously. Learned Advocate Mr. Zubin Bharda further submitted that upon perusal of the allegations levelled in the FIR, they fall into three distinct categories. Firstly, it is alleged that the petitioner issued false certificates to facilitate the promotion or posting of certain doctors. Secondly, it is alleged that the petitioner played a pivotal role in the procurement of substandard or unauthenticated medical instruments, thereby misappropriating a substantial amount of public funds. Thirdly, it Page 4 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined is alleged that the petitioner failed to pay the electricity charges for his residence, which were instead allegedly paid by the official account. 3.2. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda submitted that even a cursory reading of the FIR would show that none of the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. He further submitted that the promotions or postings of doctors as Associate Professors or Assistant Professors were duly approved by the competent higher authorities, and no irregularity has been found in the selection or appointment process. Therefore, the allegations made against the petitioner, suggesting that he facilitated appointments without adherence to eligibility criteria or requisite qualifications, are wholly baseless and devoid of any merit. 3.3. The learned Advocate Mr. Bharda further submitted that as far as the second allegation of siphoning the huge amount in purchasing of the medical instruments is concerned, the learned advocate Mr. Bharda would submit that the petitioner was never authorized to purchase the medical instruments. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda submitted that due to inadvertent error, the electricity bill of the petitioner was paid by the office, but later on that amount was recovered from the petitioner, thus the allegations now washed away.
3.4. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda submitted that the complainant is a Page 5 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined habitual RTI activist and out of vengeance he has preferred myriad number of RTI applications against the petitioner and other persons, which constrained the RTI office to observe adverse against the complainant. All this indicates that the FIR against the petitioner is malicious and vexatious and filed to settle personal score on non-existent facts and allegations, and therefore it is requested by the learned advocate for the petitioner to allow the present petition.
3.5. In light of above, learned advocate Mr. Bharda submitted that learned Court below thus, have committed serious and gross error in passing impugned order.
SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
4. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the complainant may have a dented previous history and may have filed RTI applications or may have faced criminal prosecution or has been suspended for alleged misconduct but they are not factors relevant to decide the fate of the petition. He further submitted that the three sets of allegations levelled in the FIR prima facie disclose cognizable offence. This Court, in Section 482 of the CrPC, cannot evaluate the veracity or correctness of the FIR. He further submitted that the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offence and the Court Page 6 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined needs to send the petitioner to face the trial or at least to face the investigation. Learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar thus submitted that to dismiss the present petition.
5. Joining the argument of learned Advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar, learned APP Mr. Rohan Shah submitted that as far as the first allegation in regards to supporting and helping Dr. Kamlesh Shah, Dr. Nandini Bihari, Dr. Sangeeta Jain, etc., and getting the promotion and posting as Associate Professor or Assistant Professor is concerned, learned APP submitted that investigation has prima facie revealed that the petitioner was the kingpin in appointing and posting those doctors. This indicates that the petitioner has misused his position as Dean in the medical college and it merits about the commission of the offences. For second set of allegation, learned APP submitted that tender process was full of flaws, had been admitted by APP in proceeding before Division Bench of High Court. Petitioner was one of the underlying promoter in purchase of medical instruments. This aspect, at first gives impression of siphoning of huge government fund. As far as the third set of allegations made in the concerned FIR is concerned, learned APP submitted that since the amount admittedly was recovered from the petitioner, it is proved on record from the documentary evidence that the petitioner's residence electricity bill was paid by the office. All these aspects indicate that the petitioner prima facie committed cognizable Page 7 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined offence. Therefore, this Court may not exercise the power under Section 482 of the CrPC in quashing of the FIR.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS OF THE COURT:-
6. I have heard learned Advocate for both the sides and paid extensive consideration to the facts of the case. Fact discern that after remaining unsuccessful in lodging the FIR against the petitioner, the complainant approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 78 of 2012 seeking relief to register the FIR against the petitioner. According to the order passed by the learned trial court, the Criminal Miscellaneous Application was rejected on the ground that the complainant has not filed any private complaint and in absence thereof, the Court cannot pass any order to register the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.PC to start investigation. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara, the complainant preferred Criminal Revision Application No. 210 of 2012 before the Additional District Judge, Vadodara, Chhota Udepur. In the Criminal Revision, the issue was extensively dealt with and reference was made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 2007 Law Suit (SC) 1304. After detailing the reasons given, the order to register FIR against the petitioner was Page 8 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined passed.
6.1. No sooner was the order in revision passed by the learned Sessions Court, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present petition.
However, during the pendency of the petition, the FIR was came to be registered and investigation was also carried out. Thus, the petitioner has amended the petition in wake of the above circumstances. What is noticeable is that, by way of this petition, the petitioner requests the Court to quash the FIR mainly on the ground that it is filed with ulterior motive to settle personal score, etc., and secondly, that on the face of the FIR, the allegations levelled therein do not disclose sufficient material to believe commission of a cognizable offence. The position of law in quashing FIR under Section 482 has been recently discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajay Malik v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC Online SC 185, which is as under:-
"8. It is well established that a High Court, in exercising its extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, may issue orders to prevent the abuse of court processes or to secure the ends of justice.
These inherent powers are neither controlled nor limited by any other statutory provision. However, given the broad and profound nature of this authority, the High Court must exercise it sparingly. The conditions for invoking such powers are embedded within Section 482 of the CrPC itself, allowing the High Court to act only in cases of clear abuse of process or where intervention is essential to uphold the ends of justice.Page 9 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined
9. It is in this backdrop that this Court, over the course of several decades, has laid down the principles and guidelines that High Courts must follow before quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold, thereby pre-empting the Prosecution from building its case before the Trial Court. The grounds for quashing, inter alia, contemplate the following situations: (i) the criminal complaint has been filed with mala fides; (ii) the FIR represents an abuse of the legal process; (iii) no prima facie offence is made out; (iv) the dispute is civil in nature; (v.) the complaint contains vague and omnibus allegations; and (vi) the parties are willing to settle and compound the dispute amicably (State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335)."
6.2. I may refer the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, (1983) 1 SCC wherein it is held as under:-
"10. It is, therefore, manifestly clear that proceedings against an accused in the initial stages can be quashed only if, on the face of the complaint or the papers accompanying the same, no offence is constituted. In other words, the test is that taking the allegations and the complaint as they are, without adding or subtracting anything, if no offence is made out, then the High Court will be justified in quashing the proceedings in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the present Code."
6.3. The aforesaid principle of law has been reiterated in case of Mahendra K.C. V. State of Karnataka, (2022) 2 SCC 129:-
"16. ... the test to be applied is whether the allegations in the complaint, as they stand, without adding or detracting from the complaint, prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence alleged. At this stage, the High Court cannot test the veracity of the allegations, nor, for that matter, can it proceed in the manner Page 10 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined that a judge conducting a trial would, based on the evidence collected during the course of the trial."
6.4. In the Case of Eicher Tractor Limited v. Harihar Singh and Another, (2008) 16 SCC 763, the Hon'ble Apex Court has defined the scope and ambit of Section 482 of the Cr.PC, which is as under:-
"9. As noted above, the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see the inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a State should normally refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceeding at any stage. ... It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint cannot be proceeded with. In a proceeding instituted on complaint, exercise of the inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not. disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate, it is open to the High Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. It is not, however, necessary that there should be meticulous analysis of the case before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole.Page 11 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined If it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. When an information is lodged at the police station and an offence is registered, then the mala fides of the informant would be of secondary importance. It is the material collected during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused person. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings."
6.5. The FIR which is registered by the police personnel pursuant to the order passed by the Revisional Court indicates three sets of allegations against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner has misused his power and position as a Dean and given the posting to a person who is not qualified as Associate Professor or Assistant Professor. The FIR, which is a detailed FIR, spells out that the petitioner, who is a Dean of the Medical College, helped an Associate Professor despite the fact that he was lacking the necessary teaching experience. It is also alleged that, alike, Dr. Falguni Chudasama was posted as a Class-I Officer. Dr. Kamlesh Shah, who was not allowed to do private practice, though was found to be in private practice, has been let off by the petitioner, which also indicates that the petitioner has obtained something from Dr. Kamlesh Shah. In identical allegations, it is averred in the FIR that Dr. Sangeeta Jain, who has no educational experience, was given the posting of Associate Professor by the Page 12 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined petitioner using his power and position. Document in that regard is also annexed with the complaint. The report tendered by the IO supports the allegations levelled in the FIR. The investigation, which was carried out till the filing of the report, prima facie indicates that the petitioner has misused his power and position to appoint or promote the aforesaid persons either as Associate Professor or Assistant Professor in a medical college. 6.6. The second set of allegations, that the petitioner has played a vital role in siphoning a huge amount from the purchase of medical instruments, is concerned, suffice to refer to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 4649 of 2020, which reads as under:-
"Mr Maulik Nanavati, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that owing to the scrutiny of the tender and its process, the State Government has come to the conclusion that there was a procedural as well as legal flaw committed by the respondent-authorities. In that view of the matter, the tender process deserves to be set at naught.
In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the Chairman, Gujarat Medical Education & Research Society, this Court is of the opinion that no specific orders are required and what is required is that the entire process of issuing tender in question stands quashed. Whatever supplies have been made it is given to understand that they will be taking back the said supplies and fresh tenders will be issued accordingly in the matter.
The petition is disposed of accordingly in the terms that tender process which is under challenge stands quashed."Page 13 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined 6.7. The petitioner was Dean of one of the medical colleges. Admittedly, as per the say of the Government, there was illegal flow in the purchasing of medical instruments. The grant of ₹550 crore was approved to purchase the medical instruments. The report on record indicates that the petitioner is associated with the purchase process. Prima facie material collected in investigation supports allegation of scam in purchase of medical instruments as also involvement of the petitioner. And lastly, it is an admitted position that the electricity bill of the petitioner was paid by the office, which was later on recovered from him.
6.8. In view of the above circumstances, the FIR establishes the cognizable offence against the petitioner. Learned Advocate Mr. Bharda failed to demonstrate and establish that the FIR is malicious or does not establish any cognizable offence on face value.
ORDER:-
7. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is frivolous, vexatious, and devoid of merit. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. Rule/Notice stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
8. After the pronouncement of the judgment, learned advocate for the Page 14 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/787/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 21/07/2025 undefined petitioner made a request for extension of interim relief. Request is rejected.
(J. C. DOSHI,J) MANISH MISHRA Page 15 of 15 Uploaded by MANISH MISHRA(HC01776) on Tue Jul 22 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Jul 22 21:52:18 IST 2025