Gujarat High Court
Ashokbhai Amabalal ( Kacchiya ) Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1247/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 1247 of 2014
==========================================================
ASHOKBHAI AMABALAL ( KACCHIYA ) PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MA PAREKH(1088) for the Petitioners
MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent No. 1
RULE SERVED TO CONCERNED POLICE STATION for the Respondent
No. 2
MR VISHAL K SEVAK(5237) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 13/08/2025
ORAL ORDER
By way of this application under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Code"), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting
aside Criminal Case No.1081 of 2007 arising out of FIR being
C.R.No. - I - 67 of 2006 registered with Virsad Police Station,
Anand for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408,
420, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B,, 114 of the IPC as well as
all other consequential proceedings arising out of the
aforesaid FIR qua the petitioner herein.
1. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
1.1 The petitioner was one of the Directors of Virsad
Mercantile Cooperative Society Ltd. somewhere in the year of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1247/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
1992 when the said cooperative society came into existence
with registration under the Gujarat State Cooperative
Societies Act, 1961 vide registration No.26238. That as per
the alleged complaint at Annexure-A, the complainant had
lodged complaint against the petitioner as well as other co-
accused on dated 7.12.2006. That the alleged offence taken
place as per the complainant prior to 23.5.2005 and as per the
allegations alleged in the said FIR, the petitioner alongwith
the other co-accused hands in glove together and created
fabricated documents in the name of depositors and thereby,
obtained loan. Therefore, impugned FIR is filed.
1.2 Present petition is filed to quash the FIR.
2. Seeking quashment of the Criminal Case so also the FIR,
learned advocate Mr. Parekh for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner is one of the Directors of Virsad Mercantile
Cooperative Credit Society Limited (in short " Credit
Cooperative Society") and has not participated in any way in
commission of the offence. He would further submit that
much prior to commission of the offence, the petitioner left
territory of India and settled in USA. He would further submit
that except few days in the year 2011, the petitioner was not
in India and therefore, allegation made against the petitioner
is baseless and therefore, the petitioner should not be sent for
facing trial. Learned advocate for the petitioner taking thius
Court through the charge sheet papers would submit that the
documents which are collected by the investigating officer
being part of panchnama does not contain signature of the
petitioner or any other Directors. He would further submit
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1247/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
that by the documents stated in the panchnama, it is alleged
that accused Nos.1,2 and 3 by forging documents obtained
financial benefit from the Credit Cooperative Society without
disbursing loan to any independent person. In other words,
though there is no offence, loan amount on paper was
disbursed, however, went in pocket of the accsued Nos.1 to 3,
but the petitioners are not beneficiary. In that way, it
indicates from the charge sheet papers that the petitioner is
not beneficiary to the scam alleged in the FIR nor the
petitioner has gained financial benefit from the alleged scam
and that the petitioner is nowhere involved in the alleged
offence.
2.1 Upon such submissions, learned advocate Mr. Parekh for
the petitioner prays to allow this petition.
3. Per contra, learned APP taking this Court through the
charge sheet papers, would submit that the petitioner being
Director has been arraigned as accused in the matter. He
would further submit that though the scam has been alleged
directly against original accused Nos.1 to 3, the investigation
reveals that except the petitioner, all the other accused are
charge sheeted. He would further submit that this Court, at
this juncture, should not hold mini trial segregating the role of
the present petitioner from the role alleged against other
directors. Learned APP referred to and relied upon judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Dharambeer Kumar
Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2025) 1 SCC 392 would
further submit that warrant u/s 70 of the Code is also issued
against the petitioner by the competent Court on 5.9.2008
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1247/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
which demonstrates that the petitioner is absconder. He
would further submit that the prosecution has even prayed for
issuance of look out notice against the petitioner. He would
further submit that though the learned advocate for the
petitioner has alleged that though the petitioner has resigned
as Director from the Credit Cooperative Society, he has not
produced any such document to prove the veracity of such
aspect. Upon such submission, he submits to dismiss the
petition.
4. When the matter is taken up for final hearing, learned
advocate Mr. Vishal Sevak for respondent No.3 remained
absent. Though served, none appears for respondent No.2.
5. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides and
considering the allegations levelled in the FIR, what could be
noticed that in the matter, the investigation is completed and
charge sheet prepared, charge sheet, supplementary charge
sheet and again supplementary charge sheet are filed against
accused. Even, the charge sheet is also laid against the
petitioner as he has sought to quash and set aside Criminal
Case No.108 of 2007. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, who are
working under the Managing Committee, wherein the
petitioner in the capacity of Director was a part of the
Managing Committee. They have siphoned away
Rs.32,64,207/- of the innocent depositors.
6. The duty of the Director of the Credit Cooperative
Society circle around managing the affairs of the society,
ensuring its financial health and acting in the best interest of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1247/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
its members. Director is responsible for setting policies,
overseeing operation and guiding Credit Cooperative Society
towards achieving its goal. They must also ensure compliance
with relevant laws and regulations. Director has legal and
ethical obligation to act in good faith and in the interest of
Credit Cooperative Society and its members. It is the duty of
the Director to oversee the financial health of the Credit
Cooperative Society, ensuring proper accounting, budget and
financial report. It is also the duty of the Director to monitor
overall performance of the Credit Cooperative Society and its
staff, making adjustment, as needed, to achieve the goal.
Director ensures transparency in the operation of the Credit
Cooperative Society and is account and oversees the members
for their decision and action. Perusal of charge sheet papers
demonstrate that the petitioner has breached in its duty.
7. In the present case, the FIR has been filed by the
administrator of the Credit Cooperative Society. It also comes
on record that once the administrator has taken charge of the
Credit Cooperative Society, he found huge financial scam
taken in the working of the Credit Cooperative Society.
Deposits of the innocent depositor has been duped and
siphoned away under the protection of the petitioner along
with other Directors. Therefore, he filed FIR. The petitioner
may not have directly gain the benefit, but certainly has not
followed his duty as Director and did not oversee the financial
health of the Credit Cooperative Society working under his
belt. It is the duty of the petitioner being Director to see and
manage working of the Credit Cooperative Society, same
cannot be left to sole discretion of the original accused Nos.1
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1247/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
to 3. Directorship of the Credit Cooperative Society is not
only degree, it comes with the responsibility and being
Director, even if, the petitioner left for USA, if he has
accepted responsibility, he has to oversee that business of the
Credit Cooperative Society works in accordance with the by-
laws or not and further he has to see that deposits of the
innocent depositors should not be siphoned or swindled away.
Admittedly, huge scam of siphoning amount of Rs.32,64,207/-
of the innocent depositors is undertaken under the belt of the
Directors and petitioner is one of them. The petitioner hold at
least vicarious liability. He cannot get away on the say that
he has not gained any financial scam. In the aforesaid
circumstances, without going further into merits of the case,
this Court finds that no case is made out to exercise direction
in favour of the petitioner.
8. Moreover, while exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the
Code, the Court cannot hold mini trial and appreciate the
evidence. In Dharambeer Kumar Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
"17. This Court, in a series of judgments, has held
that while exercising inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,
the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini-trial. A
profitable reference can be made to the judgment in
CBI v. Aryan Singh [CBI v. Aryan Singh, (2023) 18
SCC 399: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 379]. The relevant
paragraph from the judgment is extracted hereunder:
(SCC paras 6-7)
6. ... As per the cardinal principle of law, at the
stage of discharge and/or quashing of the
criminal proceedings, while exercising the powers
under Section 482CrPC, the Court is not required
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/1247/2014 ORDER DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
to conduct the mini-trial. ...
7. ... At the stage of discharge and/or while
exercising the powers under Section 482CrPC,
the Court has very limited jurisdiction and is
required to consider 'whether any sufficient
material is available to proceed further against
the accused for which the accused is required to
be tried or not'."
9. In the result, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
Rule discharged. Interim relief granted earlier stands
vacated.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
