Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash Cheating FIR Against Sadhavi Accused of Duping Man of ₹1.25 Crores Taken on Pretext of Clearing His Land

In a notable legal development, the Gujarat High Court has declined to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed in 2017 against a Sadhavi accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The allegations involve the Sadhavi purportedly deceiving an individual of approximately ₹1.25 crores under the pretense of facilitating the release of his land from the State Housing Board's acquisition.

The complainant, Navalgiri Jayantigiri Gosai, acting on behalf of his friend Subhash, asserted that Subhash's land had been acquired by the Gujarat Housing Board. Seeking to have the land cleared and released, they approached the petitioner-Sadhavi, who allegedly assured them of her political connections and ability to expedite the process. Trusting her assurances, they reportedly entrusted her with 16.200 kilograms of gold, valued at approximately ₹1.25 crores, which she allegedly absconded with.

Upon reviewing the case, Justice J.C. Doshi observed that the essential elements of criminal breach of trust and cheating, as defined under Sections 405 and 415 of the Indian Penal Code, appeared to be present. The court noted that the petitioner had allegedly deceived the complainant into delivering the gold under false pretenses and subsequently absconded with it. Furthermore, it was highlighted that the petitioner had ten similar FIRs lodged against her, reinforcing the decision not to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

The court concluded that the material evidence available justified the allegations, and the filing of the FIR did not constitute an abuse of the legal process. It emphasized that the criminal proceedings could not be quashed merely because some civil aspects might also be involved, especially when the record indicates the commission of a cognizable offense.

This decision underscores the judiciary's stance on allowing due legal processes to unfold, particularly in cases where prima facie evidence suggests the commission of serious offenses, even if civil disputes are also implicated.