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.

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

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:-

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.