Gujarat High Court Weekly Round Up: April 25 To May 1, 2022

Amitbhai Harilal Ruparelia vs State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 137

Time Cinemas and Entertainment Pvt Ltd versus Venus Infrastructure and Developers Pvt Ltd 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 138

Raghabhai Ukabhai Parmar Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 139

Shah Rukh Khan S/O. Meer Taj Mohammed v. State Of Gujarat 1 other 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 140

Kamlesh @ Rinku Mohanlal Upadhyay Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 141

Ashvinkumar Ramniklal Jani Versus State Of Gujarat 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 142

Bhupatbhai Pujabhai Bhoi Versus Hiraben Wo Somaji Bhoi & 2 Other(S) 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 143

Judgments/Orders of the week

Intention U/S 415 IPC Is Key; Requires Thorough Investigation: Gujarat HC Refuses To Quash FIR For Offences Of Cheating, Misappropriation

Case Title: Amitbhai Harilal Ruparelia vs State Of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 137

The High Court has refused to interfere in an application praying for the quashing of the criminal complaints for offences under Sections 406, 420, 114 and 120B of IPC wherein the Complainant had alleged that the Accused had not made payments for purchasing grey cloth worth "lacs of rupees".

It was alleged that the Accused had promised the Complainant that they would be making payment of goods within one month of the cloth being sold and on the basis of such promise, the large value of the cloth was sold. The Accused had sold cloth to other persons, misappropriated the amount, cheated the Complainant and committed a breach of trust, it was alleged. Accordingly, an FIR was filed with the Katadargam Police Station.

Second Section 9 Application, Relief Can't Be Granted As It Would Amount To Main Relief In Arbitration :Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Time Cinemas and Entertainment Pvt Ltd versus Venus Infrastructure and Developers Pvt Ltd

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 138

The High Court has ruled that once an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act) seeking interim measures has been disposed of, a subsequent similar application seeking similar reliefs, which were already dealt with in the earlier proceedings, is not maintainable.

The Bench, consisting of Justices N.V. Anjaria and Samir J. Dave, held that principal relief cannot be granted at the interim stage, and granting interim directions which are in the nature of main relief is not permissible in law.

Married Man Lures Young Girl To Elope: Gujarat High Court Directs Him To Reimburse 50% Expenses Incurred By Police In Tracing Them

Case Title: Raghabhai Ukabhai Parmar Versus State Of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 139

The Gujarat High Court recently asked a man to reimburse 50% expenses incurred by the Police department in tracing a girl he had lured to elope, despite being married himself.

The Bench comprising Justice Sonia Gokani and Justice Mauna Bhatt observed,

"We need to particularly record that here is a case where the respondent no.4 knowing fully well his own marital status, has lured the girl and his repeated actions of such nature has not only made it extremely difficult for the parties but, because of that, the Police had to work for long many hours and after about 7 months, the corpus could be traced."

Raees Promotion Stampede | Gujarat High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Actor Shah Rukh Khan

Case title - Shah Rukh Khan S/O. Meer Taj Mohammed v. State Of Gujarat 1 other

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 140

The High Court quashed a case against actor Actor Shah Rukh Khan registered against him in connection with a stampede that happened at Vadodara Railway Station during his film, Raees' promotions in the year 2017.

The Bench of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel observed that the act on part of Khan could not be termed to be so grossly negligent or reckless, neither could be an act on part of the petitioner be treated as the proximate and efficient cause of the unruly incidents at the Railway Station

Criminal Proceedings Of Private Nature Can Be Quashed U/S 482 Even If Trial Has Concluded In Conviction: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Kamlesh @ Rinku Mohanlal Upadhyay Versus State Of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 141

The High Court quashed an FIR and the order of conviction passed in a matrimonial dispute, observing that the offences involved were of non-serious and private nature.

The Bench comprising Justice Ilesh Vora quashed the FIR registered under Sections 498(a), 323, 294(b), 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3 and 7 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and set aside the order of conviction passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad.

"In light of the settled principle of law, it appears that the criminal proceedings involving non-heinous offences or where the offences are predominantly of a private nature, can be annulled irrespective of the fact that trial has already been concluded or appeal stands dismissed against conviction," it observed.

Interest On Delayed Payment Of Gratuity Mandatory, Not Discretionary: Gujarat High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Ashvinkumar Ramniklal Jani Versus State Of Gujarat

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 142

The High Court has reiterated that there is a clear mandate on the employer under the provisions of Section 7 to the Payment of Gratuity Act, for payment of gratuity within time and to pay interest on the delayed payment of gratuity.

In light of the above, the Bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav directed the Sardar Patel University to pay Rs. 10 lakhs towards gratuity of the Petitioner, a retired reader, along with interest at 9% for wrongfully withholding the gratuity since his retirement in 2013.

Bar On Cognizance U/S 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC Not Attracted When Forgery Took Place Outside Court, Before Producing Document As Evidence: Gujarat HC

Case Title: Bhupatbhai Pujabhai Bhoi Versus Hiraben Wo Somaji Bhoi & 2 Other(S)

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 143

The High Court has held that the bar of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in 'custodia legis'.

Section 195(1)(b)(ii) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of offences of Forgery, etc. when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.