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,
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
