Gujarat High Court
Maulik Gohel - Proprietor Of M/S ... vs State Of Gujarat on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20067/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 20067
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 34252 of 2025
==========================================================
MAULIK GOHEL - PROPRIETOR OF M/S OVERSEAS THROUGH POA
MITABEN RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHITH K JOSHI(9193) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original complainant under Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") seeking leave to file an appeal against the order dated 24-03-2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 19954 of 2023, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the Criminal Case for want of prosecution as the applicant did not remain present under the provisions of Section 256 of Cr.P.C. and the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 - original accused came to be acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act").
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:37:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20067/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishith K. Joshi appearing for the applicant and learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the respondent No. 1 - State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Nishith K. Joshi for the applicant submits that the applicant is in the business of Visa Consultancy and that respondent No. 2 was known to the applicant through family relations. The respondent No. 2 wanted some financial assistance, and the applicant had given a hand loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- with a condition that the amount was to be repaid within two months. Towards the outstanding amount, the respondent No. 2 had issued Cheque No. "79176" dated 07-07-2023 for Rs.5,00,000/- from her account with Indus Bank. The said cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account with the Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank, Ahmedabad Branch, but the cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient." A statutory demand notice was issued to respondent No. 2, which was duly served, but respondent No. 2 did not make the payment within the stipulated period and hence, the applicant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 19954 of 2021. The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 appeared before Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:37:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20067/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined the Trial Court and the plea was recorded at Exh. 4 and the matter was pending for cross-examination of the applicant. The applicant filed his affidavit of examination-in-chief and also filed all the documents on which he relied to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant had also filed an application at Exhibit 7 under Section 143(A)(2) of the NI Act, which was kept pending for hearing. The applicant and his learned advocate remained present on each date before the Trial Court, but the cross- examination of the applicant was not taken, as the respondent No. 2 preferred exemption applications, which were allowed. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that even though the evidence of the applicant was on record and the applications at Exhibits 7 was to be heard, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, dismissed the case for want of prosecution. It is submitted that the applicant has a good case on merits and that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the evidence already on record was sufficient to prove the case against respondent No. 2 beyond reasonable doubt, hence, the application seeking leave to appeal deserves to be granted
4. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the respondent No 1 - State and has submitted that learned trial Court has considered the absence of the Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:37:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/20067/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025 undefined applicant and passed the impugned order and hence application may be rejected.
5. Considering the submissions of learned advocate for the applicant and on perusal of the copy of the Rojkam, the applicant had produced his affidavit of examination-in-chief and documentary evidence on record, however, the learned trial Court, has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and has passed the impugned order and dismissed the case for want of prosecution. The application seeking leave to appeal deserves consideration and consequently, the application is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Oct 06 23:37:57 IST 2025