The Gujarat High Court recently issued a significant judgment in the Empire Overseas Services Forgery Case. This case involved allegations of document forgery and false certificates, with Mr. Ankit Patel as the owner of Empire Oversea Services implicated in the incident. The court examined the evidence and legal provisions before making their decision, ultimately resulting in the dismissal of the petition. Stay informed about this crucial legal development. #EmpireOverseasServices #ForgeryCase
Facts
- The FIR was launched by Mr. Virendrasinh Indrasinh Parmar, an assistant head constable at CID Crime police station, Gandhinagar.
- The FIR alleges that the petitioner and co-accused Vishal Rameshbhai Shah issued false documents and marksheets for work permits and student visas.
- Allegations include the fabrication of marksheets of students like Mr. Soham Lalabhai Chaudhary from various universities.
- FIR No: 11201001230010 of 2023 was registered with CID Crime Gandhinagar on 20/12/2023 for offenses under section 467, 468, 471, 120B of IPC.
- The petitioner’s name is mentioned by a co-accused but lacks evidentiary value.
- The petitioner is claimed to be unconnected with the firm Empire Overseas Services accused of document forgery.
- The petitioner has not visited the firm’s office for over a year, verifiable through CCTV footage.
- Allegations regarding false marksheets and degree certificates of Mr. Soham Lalabhai Chaudhary from Maharaja Sayajirao University of Vadodara were found during CID Crime Vadodara’s verification.
- The documents were not used by the petitioner, challenging the validity of forgery allegations against him.
- Arguments were presented by Senior Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza and Advocate Mr. PM Raval for the petitioner and APP Mr. Soham Joshi for the State.
Arguments
- The petitioner has cooperated with the investigation by providing all requested documents on three previous occasions.
- The petitioner is a permanent resident of Gandhinagar and poses no flight risk.
- The petitioner’s firm prepared fake documents for individuals seeking visas to countries like USA, UK, and Canada.
- The petitioner is implicated as the main accused as the owner of the firm.
- The petitioner compelled another accused to execute a rent agreement for the office space and fake documents were found in another office owned by the petitioner.
- The petitioner’s involvement is primarily based on the statements of co-accused and lacks substantial evidence directly linking the petitioner to the forged documents.
- The court decision in a similar case emphasized the seriousness of the offence and the societal impact, leaning against granting pre-arrest bail.
- The APP argues against granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
- The police raided the petitioner’s office in Navrangpura and found fake and forged documents, linking the petitioner to the offense.
- Statements from a co-accused, Mr. Vishal, further implicate the petitioner in the crime.
- The petitioner is avoiding investigation and a look-out circular has been issued against him.
- The petitioner is the main kingpin of the firm involved in forging documents for work permits and student visas.
- The APP requests the dismissal of the petition based on these grounds.
Analysis
- Mr. Vishal, the Manager of the firm, confirmed that the owner is Mr. Ankit Patel who is the present petitioner
- Mr. Vishal has been working as a Councilor-cum-Manager in the firm for the past four years
- The petitioner pays salary to Mr. Vishal
- Mr. Vishal provided details of the petitioner’s forgery modus operandi to help aspirants go abroad
- Initially, the firm’s office was located in Gandhinagar with several employees working there
- During a raid on 15.12.2023 by CID Crime, fake mark-sheets, degree certificates, and IT returns were found at Empire Overseas Services
- The petitioner in the case of P. Chidambaram v/s Directorate of Enforcement did not argue that the FIR against him was filed to humiliate or tarnish his image.
- The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jaiprakash v/s. State of Bihar emphasized that the intentions behind filing the FIR were crucial in assessing the case.
- It is important to consider the motive behind filing an FIR to understand the nature of the case.
Decision
- The petition was filed by Original Name 1 seeking relief against a particular decision
- The court considered the arguments and submissions of both parties
- Upon examination of the evidence and legal provisions, the court found that the petitioner’s case lacked merit
- As a result, the petition was dismissed and the relief sought was not granted
Case Title: ANKIT RAJIVKUMAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/CR.MA/8303/2024
