Gujarat High Court
Shriram Finance Ltd Through Kalpesh ... vs State Of Gujarat on 24 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20597/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 20597
of 2024
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 39756 of 2024
==========================================================
SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD THROUGH KALPESH RAMANLAL RAJGOR
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
MR MALAVSINGH N CHAUHAN(10279) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS BHAVINI N CHAUHAN(10271) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 24/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
When the matter is called out, learned advocate Ms. Namrata
Mulchandani appearing for the applicant is present and learned advocate
Ms. Bhavini N. Chauhan for the respondent No. 2 is not present.
1. The present application is filed by the applicant seeking leave to
appeal against the order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the Court of 2nd
Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa (hereinafter referred to
as the learned trial Court) acquitting the respondent - No. 2 in Criminal
Case No. 3270 of 2022 filed by the applicant for the offence under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. (hereinafter referred
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20597/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
to as the NI Act).
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. Namrata Mulchandani for the
applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Chetna Shah for
the respondent No. 1 - State. 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 Ms. Namrata Mulchandani for the applicant
submits that the applicant is in the business of extending finance and the
respondent No. 2 had purchased Ford Figo bearing registration No. GJ-
02-AP-9707 and had taken a loan for the vehicle. The amount was to be
paid in installments and towards which the respondent No. 2 had given a
cheque No. "240215" dated 13.09.2022 for the amount of Rs.1,20,000/-
and Cheque No. "240216" dated 28.09.2022 for the amount of
Rs.50,787/- from his account with State Bank of India, Iqbalgadh Branch.
The applicant deposited the said cheques in his account but the said
cheques returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The
demand statutory notice was given, which was duly served to the
respondent No.2. However, the respondent No. 2 did not submit any reply
and did not repay the amount within the stipulated time and hence the
criminal complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, which was
registered as Criminal Case No. 3270 of 2022 before the Court of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20597/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa. The summons
were issued and after the summons were duly served to the respondent
No. 2 appeared before the learned trial Court and his plea was recorded
and the applicant produced oral and documentary evidence in support of
his case. The applicant produced the statement of loan agreement at
Exh.18, the RTO information letter at Exh.19, the a loan agreement at
Exh.36 and power of attorney, by which, the applicant was authorized to
file the complaint at Exh.37. Learned advocate for the applicant submits
that the learned trial Court did not appreciate the documents in proper
perspective and even though the applicant had proved that the amount of
the cheques in question were the legally enforceable due amount, the
learned trial Court was pleased to hold that the power of attorney was not
properly executed and by the impugned order dated 04.09.2024 was
pleased to acquit the respondent No.2 from the offence under Section 138
of the N.I.Act. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the
presumption was not rebutted by the respondent No. 2 and the impugned
order came to be passed. The applicant has a good case on merits, and
hence, the application seeking leave to appeal must be granted.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Chetna Shah appearing
for the respondent-State has submitted that learned trial Court has
appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and no interference is
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20597/2024 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
required in the impugned order and hence the application seeking leave to
appeal must be 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 submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant,
prima-facie, it appears that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the
documents in proper perspective and hence, the application seeking leave
to appeal deserves consideration and the same is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
