Gujarat High Court
Shriram Finance Ltd. (Shriram ... vs State Of Gujarat on 2 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/23572/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 23572 of
2024
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 43871 of 2024
===============================================================
SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD. (SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LTD.)
THRO BHAVINKUMAR GHANSHYAMBHAI THAKER
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS NAMRATA R MULCHANDANI(9956) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS DHWANI TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 02/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Namrata R. Mulchandani for the applicant and learned APP Ms.Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent - State.
2. By way of the present application, the applicant has prayed to grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 1015 of 2013.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:13:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23572/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate Ms.Namrata Mulchandani for the applicant submits that the applicant is in the business of finance and the respondent No. 2 had taken a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- for the vehicle No.GJ-01-AU-4693 and agreement value of the vehicle is Rs.1,83,968/-. The respondent No.2 did not pay up the amount of Rs.2,38,134/- and the outstanding amount was Rs.2,38,134/-, towards which, the respondent No.2 gave cheque No.297150 dated 26.02.2013 for an amount of Rs.2,38,134/- from his account with H.D.F.C.Bank, Surendranagar Branch. The cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account with Axis Bank, CMM Surendranagar Branch and the said cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The demand statutory notice was given which was duly served to the respondent No.2 and no reply was given and the amount was not paid and hence, the applicant had filed the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I.Act before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Surendranagar which culminated into Criminal Case No.1015 of 2013. After the respondent No.2 was served with the summons, but thereafter, the respondent No.2 did not appear and bailable as well as non-bailable warrants were issued, which could Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:13:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23572/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined not be served to the respondent No.2 for a long time. The applicant and the learned advocate for had remained present and had given applications for issuance of non-bailable warrants, and on 03.03.2017, the respondent No.2 was arrested and was produced before the learned Trial Court and taken into the judicial custody. The respondent No.2 was thereafter released on bail of cash amount of Rs.5,000/- and surety of Rs.10,000/- and was released from judicial custody but, once again, the respondent No.2 stopped appearing before the learned Trial Court and the non- bailable warrants was once again issued but the same could not be served. The respondent No.2 had successfully avoided the service of non-bailable warrant and the applicant filed the affidavit of examination-in-chief at Exh.31 on 18.05.2019. The documentary evidence was also produced by a list at Exh.30 and as the respondent No.2 was not appearing, the non-bailable warrants were continuously issued by the learned Trial Court but they were not served. The learned advocate for the applicant and the applicant had remained present before the learned Trial Court on a number of occasions and had made all efforts to get the warrants served to the respondent No.2 but the learned Trial Court, by the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:13:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23572/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2024, was pleased to dismiss the complaint of the applicant. The learned advocate submits that the entire evidence of the applicant was on record and the respondent No.2 was successfully avoiding the service even though the applicant and his learned advocate had made innumerable efforts to get the warrants served. The applicant has a good case on merits, and therefore, the present leave to appeal may be allowed.
4. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi for the respondent
- State submits that necessary order may be passed on perusal of the copy of the rojkam in the interest of justice.
5. Having heard advocates for the respective parties and also the on perusal of the copy of the rojkam, it appears that the respondent No. 2 was successful in avoiding the service and innumerable warrants were issued which could not be served to the respondent No.2. In this matter too, the notice has been served to the respondent No.2 but he has not appeared either in person or through an advocate. The entire evidence of the applicant was on record which has not been appreciated by the learned Trial Court. Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:13:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/23572/2024 ORDER DATED: 02/04/2025 undefined The arguments of the learned advocate for the applicant require consideration. Consequently, the present application seeking leave to appeal, is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J) F.S. KAZI Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by F.S. KAZI(HC01075) on Thu Apr 03 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 03 22:13:50 IST 2025