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.
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
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
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.
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
