Gujarat High Court
Ronak K. Yogi vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 7079 of 2022
With
CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of
2025
In R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 7079 of 2022
=====================================================
RONAK K. YOGI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR SANDIP H MUNJYASARA(10781) for the Applicant(s)
No. 1
MR RONAK RAVAL ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 01/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
ORDER IN CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2025
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sandip Munjyasara for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval for the respondent-State.
2. At the outset, it was pointed out that the applicant has filed an application for amendment, Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined whereby the complete set of charge-sheet papers has been placed on record and amendment of the main petition is sought by incorporating certain additional facts, grounds, and prayers.
3. Considering that the application for amendment is not seriously opposed, the same is allowed. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. ORDER CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 7079 of 2022
1. By way of this petition, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the charge- sheet being No. 07 of 2025 dated 13.02.2025, filed on 08.08.2025, in connection with F.I.R. No. 11192061210119 of 2021 dated 26.03.2021, registered with Viramgam Town Police Station, pending before the Court of the 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge and A.C.J.M., Viramgam, District Ahmedabad (Rural), for the offences punishable under Sections 511, 409, and Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and has further prayed to quash and set aside all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the applicant, including C.C. No. 2273 of 2025.
2. The offence in question, for which the charge- sheet was filed on 08.08.2025, was registered on 26.03.2021 against five persons, including the present applicant, who was then serving as the Godown Manager, for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act.
3. As per the FIR, 400 bags each of wheat and rice were transported in two different trucks, driven by accused Nos. 1 and 2, to Padmavati Rice Mill at Naroda instead of the Viramgam Godown of the Civil Supply Department, from the FCI Godown at Kaligam. The aforesaid bags of food grains, amounting in total to around one lakh rupees--forty thousand rupees towards the value of wheat and sixty thousand rupees Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined towards the value of rice--were misappropriated. It is further alleged that, in pursuance of a pre-planned conspiracy hatched in connivance with each other, the present applicant, arraigned as accused No. 3, by not maintaining the inward and outward registers, was instrumental in such conspiracy along with the other accused persons, and thereby the food grains worth rupees one lakh were misappropriated. The period of offence, as per the FIR, is between 12.04.2020 and 30.09.2020, for which the charge-sheet has now been filed on 08.08.2025. The petition was preferred on 06.04.2022; however, as per the record, till 12.12.2022 the matter was never heard and no notice has been issued till date, during which period the charge-sheet came to be filed.
4. The present applicant, who was serving as Godown Manager at the relevant point of time, is already facing departmental proceedings in respect of the very same offence, as submitted by Mr. Munjusariya, learned advocate for the applicant. According to the learned advocate, though the charge-sheet has been filed, there is no material against the present Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined applicant, as is evident from the charge-sheet papers. Learned advocate Mr. Munjusariya further canvassed the fact that the alleged offence is of a civil nature and can be divided into four parts. The first part of the offence, according to him, pertains to the misappropriation of 400 bags of food grains; the second part relates to non-maintenance of inward and outward registers; the third part pertains to temporary misappropriation, which was subsequently rectified; and the fourth part is the allegation that the present applicant assisted the other accused persons in committing the offence in respect of the first and third parts. It is therefore submitted that, considering his overall career record and the absence of any material against him, the present applicant ought not to have been arraigned as an accused, and no charge-sheet should have been filed against him.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara sought to convince the Court by drawing attention to Condition No. 27 of the contract entered into between the Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined contractor and the Civil Supply Corporation. According to him, under Condition No. 27 of the contract/work order, it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the food grains are transported from the FCI Godown to the Civil Supply Godown, and the contractor alone is responsible for any route diversions. By relying upon the aforesaid clause in the contract/work order, learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara submitted that the dispute is purely of a civil nature but has wrongly been given the colour of criminality, and therefore, the impugned FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside, particularly when there is no material against the present applicant.
6. It was further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara that, on a bare perusal of the charge- sheet papers, no role can be attributed to the present applicant. Even in the charge-sheet, the applicant is merely shown as a conspirator; however, without any cogent evidence against him, the alleged offence has been attributed to the applicant as if the conspiracy was hatched by him. On the contrary, Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined the charge-sheet itself records that the alleged misappropriation of food grains was only temporary in nature and that, upon verification, the stock ultimately tallied with the original stock. Therefore, no offence can be said to have been made out against the applicant.
7. It was also contended that Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code was invoked without obtaining prior permission of the competent court, which is contrary to the provisions of law. Hence, no offence is made out and the FIR deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. This, in sum and substance, was the crux of the submissions advanced by learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara during his hour-long arguments.
9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval, appearing for the respondent-State, submitted that there is ample material against the present applicant. He referred to the statement of witness Mohammed Bilal Aslam Mandli, indicating that at the time when the offence was committed, the present applicant was the then Godown Manager and failed to Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined maintain the registers showing the inward and outward stock of the godown. Further, he referred to the statement of one Samir Yudhisthir, who stated that two trucks containing the food grains had reached the godown.
10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the modus operandi adopted by the accused was as follows: although the truck would leave the FCI Godown at Kaligam, since GPS devices were installed in the trucks, the goods in the form of food grains were unloaded at a private rice mill, namely Padmavati Rice Mill, Naroda. Thereafter, to create the appearance that the trucks had reached their intended destination, empty trucks were sent to the Food Corporation Godown. Considering the nature of the offence, there is therefore ample material against the present applicant, who was the Godown Manager at the relevant time. Mere reliance on Section 27 of the contract executed between the contractor and the Corporation, or on the basis that the present applicant was only the Godown Manager, cannot, without leading evidence, serve the interest Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined of justice.
11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that, given the serious allegation of misappropriating food grains worth rupees one lakh meant for the general public, the present applicant is required to face trial, as there is material available against him. Regarding the submission of learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara that the offence is of a civil nature, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval submitted that even if a departmental inquiry is contemplated or initiated against the present applicant, it does not bar the registration of a criminal offence, as the nature of evidence in both proceedings would be different.
12. Further, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammed Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and Others, reported in 2019 (6) SCC 107, and particularly paragraph 14 of the judgment, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the High Court has no jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined appreciate evidence. Whether there are contradictions or inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses is essentially an issue relating to appreciation of evidence, which can only be gone into by the trial court. Therefore, the submissions of learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara cannot be accepted, and the petition may be dismissed.
13. By making the above submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Ronak Raval prayed for dismissal of the petition.
14. However, according to learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara, there are no inconsistencies in the statements, and therefore, the aforesaid judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
15. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, I find that the allegation in the charge-sheet is that the present applicant was instrumental in hatching a conspiracy and thereby misappropriated the food grains. However, it is also noted that upon learning Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined of a raid carried out in another godown in connivance with others, the present applicant attempted to set things right, and subsequently, the stock of food grains matched the original stock. Therefore, this appears to be a case of temporary misappropriation.
16. Be that as it may, considering the statements of witnesses recorded in the charge-sheet, it is prima facie evident that at the time of the alleged offence, the present applicant was the Godown Manager of the Corporation's godown, and it was his duty to oversee the godown, including maintaining the inward and outward registers. I am conscious that the present applicant is facing a departmental inquiry, as stated by learned advocate Mr. Munjyasara; however, the mere initiation of a departmental inquiry against a Government Officer or an officer of a semi-government organization does not bar criminal proceedings against him.
17. The present applicant held a responsible position in a Government organization, and allegations touching his integrity, which relate to Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/7079/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/10/2025 undefined causing financial loss to the public to the tune of rupees one lakh by misappropriating food grains meant for the public, cannot be ignored. Such allegations, when backed by statements and other material, cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a contract or work order executed between the Corporation and the contractor, wherein it is stated that the responsibility lies with the contractor.
18. Further, allegations of misappropriation of food grains cannot be classified as a civil dispute. It is a fact that statements indicate the food grains were actually unloaded at Padmavati Rice Mill in Naroda, which had been loaded from the FCI depo at Kaligam and were supposed to reach the Viramgam depo of the Civil Supply Corporation. Considering the nature of the allegations and the prima-facie material available against the present applicant, I do not find any reason to interfere with the ongoing trial at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Sat Oct 04 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:58:06 IST 2025