Gujarat High Court
Marya Mustufa Fozdar vs State Of Gujarat on 13 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19818/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 19818
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 37901 of 2025
==========================================================
MARYA MUSTUFA FOZDAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SANJEEV J.THAKER
Date : 13/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by applicant original
complainant to appeal seeking leave to file an appeal against the
judgment and decree dated 05.08.2025 passed by the learned 3 rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of
2024, whereby the conviction order dated 10.01.2024 passed by
the learned 16th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in
Criminal Case No. 32704 of 2019, was quashed and set-aside and
the respondent no. 2 was acquitted from the offences punishable
under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar for the appellant
and learned APP Yuvraj Brahmbhatt for the respondent no. 1 state
an argument that as the respondent no. 2 and the brother of the
applicant were friends, therefore, the respondent no. 2 was in need
of monetary requirement, respondent no. 2 had taken the hand
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19818/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
loan amounting to Rs. 9,00,000/- and therefore paying back the
said legal dues, the respondent no. 2 had issued the cheque of Rs.
9,00,000/- bearing no. 997150 drawn on the State Bank of India,
Fatehganj Branch, Vadodara and when the applicant deposited the
said cheque on 05.09.2019 for clearance in Central Bank of India,
Karelibaug Branch, Vadodara, the same was returned dishonored
on 06.09.2019 with the endorsement "funds insufficient", therefore,
on 17.09.2019 the applicant had issued the demand notice to the
respondent no. 2 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881 which was duly served to the respondent no. 2 on
18.09.2019 then too, the respondent no. 2 did not pay back the
cleared the legal dues of the applicant and neither gave any reply
to the said demand notice and therefore, the applicant had filed
complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. The present application has provided oral as well as
documentary evidence. Thereafter, the plea of the respondent no.
2-original accused came to be recorded, wherein she pleaded not
to be guilty and the Additional Chied Judicial Magistrate Vadodara
after conclusion of trial, respondent no. 2 was convicted for the
offences punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act and was sentenced to undergo Twelve months of
simple imprisonment along with the compensation amount of the
dishonored cheques that is of Rs. 9,00,000/- in default of which
further three months of simple imprisonment was passed in the
said order has been quashed and set-aside by the 3 rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Vadodara, in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2024.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/19818/2025 ORDER DATED: 13/11/2025
undefined
4. Learned Advocate for the applicant has argued that the trial
court has not appreciated the evidence in proper prospective
Learned advocate submits that the applicant has a good case on
merits and the applicant seeking relief to appeal be granted.
Learned APP Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt for the respondent submits
that learned trial Court has considered all documents produced by
applicant and also considered the evidence and has passed the
order of acuqittal considering the settled principles of law and
hence the leave to appeal cannot be granted.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having
considered the submissions advanced by the respective parties so
also having considered the judgment of the trial Court and having
considered the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 2025
LiveLaw SC 383 in the case of Ashok Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another (supra), prima facie, present matter requires
consideration and hence the present application for leave to
appeal is granted and it is disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV J.THAKER,J)
SAKSHI MAURYA
