Gujarat High Court
Mukeshkumar Kantilal Parmar vs Ronak M. Makwana on 11 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12094/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 12094
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 22202 of 2025
==========================================================
MUKESHKUMAR KANTILAL PARMAR
Versus
RONAK M. MAKWANA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIN G PANDYA(3999) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR ROHAN N. SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 11/08/2025
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 06.02.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalol (hereinafter referred to as the
"learned Trial Court") in Criminal Case No. 2645 of 2023,
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 N.I.Act" for short).
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12094/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Maulin G. Pandya for the
applicant and learned APP Mr.Rohan N. Shah for the respondent
State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Maulin G. Pandya for the
applicant submits that some transactions have taken place between
the applicant and the respondent no. 1 and out of the same
transaction, the applicant had to take Rs.25,00,000/- from the
respondent no. 1, towards which, the respondent no. 1 had gave
cheque no. 000067 dated 15.01.2022 for the amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- from his account with IDFC First Bank, Vatva
Branch. The cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account
with State Bank of India, Dindoli, Surat Branch, but the cheque
returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The
demand statutory notice was given, which was duly served to the
respondent no. 1, but the respondent no. 1 did not reply the notice
and did not pay the amount within the stipulated period, and
hence, the applicant filed the complaint under Section 138 of the
N.I.Act before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12094/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
Kalol, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 2645 of
2023. The respondent no. 2 was duly served with the summons
and he appeared before the learned Trial Court and his plea was
recorded at Exh.11 on 24.05.2024. That at the time of filing the
complaint, the applicant had produced his affidavit-in-chief at
Exh.4 and the documents on which he relied upon filed at Exh.3
and the applicant had also preferred an application at Exh.5 for
exhibiting the documents, which was kept pending for hearing.
During trial, the the applicant was pleased to take the bail of the
respondent no. 1 but by the impugned order dated 06.02.2025, the
learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Learned
advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant is working in
the Police Department as a P.S.I. in Surat and was not able to
appear before the learned Trial Court. Learned advocate further
submits that the learned Trial Court has, without appreciating the
evidence in proper perspective, dismissed the complaint. Learned
advocate submits that the applicant has a good case on merits and
the application seeking leave to appeal must be granted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/12094/2025 ORDER DATED: 11/08/2025
undefined
4. Learned APP Mr.Rohan N. Shah for the respondent
State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered the
absence of the applicant and has passed the impugned order of
acquittal and hence, the leave to appeal may not be granted.
5. Considering the submissions of learned advocate for
the applicant as also on perusal of the paper book on record and
the judgment and order of acquittal, prima-facie, it appears that the
documents have not been properly appreciated in proper
perspective. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in
the considered opinion of this Court the application deserves to be
considered. Consequently, the application seeking leave to appeal
is granted and disposed off accordingly.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
F.S. KAZI
