Introduction:

In the case of Sadhviji Jayshrigiri Guru Jagdishgiri v. State of Gujarat & Anr., the Gujarat High Court refused to quash an FIR lodged in 2017 against a Sadhavi (female monk) accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The complainant, Navalgiri Jayantigiri Gosai, filed the case on behalf of his friend Subhash, alleging that the Sadhavi defrauded him of ₹1.25 crores and 16.2 kg of gold on the pretext of helping him reclaim land acquired by the Gujarat Housing Board. The petitioner allegedly promised to use her political and bureaucratic connections to resolve the issue but failed to do so and later absconded. Noting that ten identical cases had been lodged against the petitioner, the High Court observed that prima facie ingredients of Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC were made out. The court dismissed the plea, holding that the case could not be quashed at the initial stage merely because civil wrongs were also involved.

Arguments:

The petitioner, through her counsel, contended that the FIR was vexatious and frivolous, arguing that no person of ordinary prudence would entrust such a huge amount and substantial gold to a Sadhavi who had renounced worldly possessions. She asserted that the allegations were fabricated, and no valid evidence existed to support the claim. The petitioner further argued that the dispute was of a civil nature and that the complainant was attempting to give it a criminal color to harass her. Her counsel relied on Supreme Court precedents that emphasize the need to distinguish between civil and criminal liability, urging the High Court to exercise its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. Conversely, the State opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner had misrepresented herself as having influence in government circles to defraud the complainant. The prosecution emphasized that the FIR was not an abuse of process, as it disclosed a cognizable offence. The State also highlighted that multiple similar complaints had been filed against the petitioner, indicating a pattern of deceit rather than an isolated instance. It was argued that the petitioner’s conduct fell squarely within the ambit of criminal breach of trust and cheating, as she had dishonestly induced the complainant to part with large sums of money and gold under false assurances.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice J.C. Doshi, in rejecting the plea to quash the FIR, emphasized that the allegations in the FIR made out prima facie ingredients of criminal breach of trust and cheating. The court observed that the complainant, trusting the petitioner, had given her ₹1.25 crores and 16.2 kg of gold, which she dishonestly took and absconded with. The court noted that mere renunciation of the world does not grant immunity from criminal liability and dismissed the petitioner’s contention that no reasonable person would entrust such wealth to a monk. The judgment pointed out that whether the allegations were true or false was a matter for trial, and at the FIR stage, the court only needed to ascertain whether a prima facie case was made out. The presence of ten identical complaints against the petitioner further strengthened the prosecution’s case, leading the court to hold that there was no ground to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR. The court also rejected the argument that the dispute was purely civil, reasoning that the fraudulent inducement and misappropriation of entrusted property attracted criminal liability. It emphasized that mere financial transactions do not absolve a party from criminal prosecution if deceit and dishonesty are involved.