Gujarat High Court
Ilaben Bakrushnabhai Rajyaguru vs Rudra Developers on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/8535/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 8535 of
2024
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 16283 of 2024
==========================================================
ILABEN BAKRUSHNABHAI RAJYAGURU
Versus
RUDRA DEVELOPERS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAYDEVSINH CHUDASAMA(13128) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR PREM D DAVE(10958) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
DEEPAK N KHANCHANDANI(7781) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original complainant seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 29078/2018, whereby, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the accused from the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to "the NI Act" for short).
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prem Dave for the applicant and learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent State.
Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8535/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. Prem Dave for the applicant submits that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of respondent No. 1 Firm -Rudra Developers and the applicant was working as a teacher and she wanted to purchase a flat, which was being constructed by Rudra Developers. The applicant and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had agreed for the purchase of Flat No.C-404 for Rs.10,00,000/- and an agreement to sell was executed between the parties, in which, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was given as the agreement to sell. Thereafter, the applicant gave an amount of Rs. 4,21,000/- as part payment and as the loan document were to be prepared, the papers were produced in the bank but as the title of the property was not clear the loan could not be passed. The applicant approached the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to cancel the agreement to sell and a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed between them, wherein cheque No. "000428' dated 01.04.2018 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, Cheque No. 000429 dated 01.04.2018 for an amount of Rs. 1,000,00/- and Cheque no. 000430 dated 01.04.2018 for Rs. 1,00,000/- was given. The cheques were deposited by the applicant in her account with State Bank of India, but the cheques were returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The demand statutory notice was issued to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to which, an evasive reply was given and thereafter, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not repay the amount within Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8535/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined the stipulated period, and hence, the applicant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 29078 of 2018.
3.1 The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were duly served and appeared before the learned Trial Court and after their pleas were recorded, the applicant stepped into the witness-box and produced documents in support of her case. Learned advocate Mr. P.M.Dave for the applicant submits that the applicant produced all the documentary evidence including the copy of the agreement to sell at Exh.15, the bank statement at Exh. 16, MoU at executed between the parties at Exh. 17 them and other documents but the learned trial Court did not appreciate the same in proper perspective and by the impugned judgment and order, was pleased to acquit the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act mainly on the ground that the applicant was not able to prove that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had given the cheques and that they were given towards a legally enforceable debt. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the documents in proper perspective and the applicant had proved that the amount due was the legally enforceable due amount which was to be given by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The applicant has a good case on Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8535/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined merits and hence, the applicant seeking leave to appeal must be granted.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Deepak Khanchandani for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that it is on record that the amount was not received by the respondents No. 2 and 3 and it is the case of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that they were pressurized to sign the Memorandum of Understanding as the applicant had filed a complaint before the police station and hence the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the fact that there was no legally enforceable due to be paid by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The learned trial Court has appreciated all the documents in proper perspective and hence the application seeking leave to appeal must be rejected.
5. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the respondent No 1 - State and has submitted that learned trial Court has considered the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment and order and hence application may be rejected.
6. Considering the submissions of learned advocates for both the parties and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court as also the paper book produced on record, prima facie, it appears that the documents have not been properly appreciated in Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:39 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8535/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined proper perspective and hence, the issue requires consideration. Consequently, the application seeking leave to appeal is granted and disposed off accordingly.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Tue Oct 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 05:20:39 IST 2025