Gujarat High Court
Nirajkumar Laljibhai Maurya vs Akhilesh Satyaprasad Maurya on 17 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13905/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 13905
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 23706 of 2025
==========================================================
NIRAJKUMAR LALJIBHAI MAURYA
Versus
AKHILESH SATYAPRASAD MAURYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYA T PANCHOLI(13067) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
RAFIK LOKHANDWALA(5590) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 17/07/2025
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 14.05.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Court") in
Criminal Case No.86336 of 2023, whereby the learned trial Court was
pleased to dismiss the complaint for the absence of the applicant and
acquit the respondent No. 1 from the offence under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI
Act").
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rafik Lokhandwala for the applicant,
and learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent No.2 - State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13905/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
Perused the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court as well
as the paper book submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant and
the respondent No. 1 were known to each other and were good friends.
The respondent No. 1 wanted to some hand loan for his personal
expenses and the applicant had given an amount of Rs.6,30,000/- in parts
to the respondent No.1. The respondent No. 1 had executed an
undertaking before the notary on 01.03.2022 and had issued cheque No.
"000010" dated 07.07.2023 for Rs.6,30,000/- his account with The
Kalupur Cooperative Bank Limited, Adajan, Surat Branch. The cheque
was deposited by the applicant in his account with Bank of Baroda,
Bhestan Branch, Surat but the cheque returned unpaid with the
endorsement " Funds Insufficient". The applicant gave the demand
statutory notice, which was duly served to the respondent No. 1 but the
respondent No. 1 did not send any reply and did not repay the amount
within 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.
86336 of 2023. After the learned trial Court took cognizance of the
offence, the respondent No. 1 appeared before the learned Trial Court and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13905/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
his plea was recorded at Exh.7. The applicant submitted his affidavit of
examination-in-chief and other documents including the undertaking
given by the applicant at Exh.8 and the matter was pending for the cross
examination of the applicant. Learned advocate for the applicant submits
that the father of the applicant was not well, and hence, the applicant
could not attend the learned trial Court for cross examination on a couple
of adjournment and by the impugned order dated 14.05.2025, the learned
trial Court was pleased to pass the order below Exh.1 and acquit the
respondent No. 1 in the absence of evidence of the complainant. Learned
advocate for the applicant submits that the evidence of the applicant was
on record and the oral and documentary evidence exhibited at Exh.8 to 13
were sufficient to prove that there was a legally enforceable debt but the
learned trial Court did not appreciate the evidence and has passed the
impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The applicant has a good case
on merits and hence, the learned advocate urges this Court to allow the
application seeking leave to appeal.
4. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent No 1 - State
and has submitted that learned trial Court has considered the absence of
the applicant and passed the impugned order and no interference is
required and hence the application seeking leave to appeal must be
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13905/2025 ORDER DATED: 17/07/2025
undefined
rejected..
5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for
the applicant as also on perusal of the impugned judgment and order and
the paper book including the copy of the Rojkam submitted by the
learned advocate for the applicant, prima-facie, it appears that the learned
trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper
perspective and hence, the application seeking leave to appeal deserves
consideration and the same is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
