Gujarat High Court
Faruk Abdulmajid Tildi vs Bharatbhai Apabhai Charan (Gadhvi) on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6486/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO.
6486 of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 11971 of 2025
========================================================
FARUK ABDULMAJID TILDI
Versus
BHARATBHAI APABHAI CHARAN (GADHVI) & ANR.
========================================================
Appearance:
MR M.G.SHAIKH, ADVOCATE for MR. ALTAF Y CHARKHA(7271) for the Applicant
MR NAREN B GADHVI(13530) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS. M. B. RATHOD(15584) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS.C.M.SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 12/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. When the matter was called out, learned advocate
Mr. Naren B. Gadhvi for the respondent no. 1 was not present.
2. The present application is filed by the applicant -
original complainant seeking leave to file an appeal against the
judgement and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Godhra (hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial
Court") in Criminal Case No. 158 of 2024 dated 29.01.2025,
whereby, the learned Trial Court was pleased to acquit the
accused from the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6486/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to "the N.I.Act" for
short).
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. M.G.Shaikh for learned
advocate Mr. Altaf Charkha for the applicant and learned APP
Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent State.
4. Learned advocate Mr. M.G.Shaikh for the applicant
submits that the applicant and the respondent no.1 were known
to each other and the respondent no.1 was also in the business
of buying and selling vehicles on commission. The applicant
wanted to purchase a sleeper bus and the applicant had
inquired from the respondent no.1 as to whether he had any bus
to sell. The respondent no.1 had sent some photographs about
one sleeper bus which was liked by the applicant and as per the
demand of the respondent no.1, an amount of Rs.1,50,000 was
sent by angadiya to the respondent no.1 as advance amount.
The applicant had gone to Jasdan to get the bus, but the owner
of the bus refused to sell the bus, and hence, the applicant
demanded the amount that was sent as advance to the
respondent no.1 and towards the outstanding amount, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6486/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
respondent no.1 gave cheque no.000034 for an amount of
Rs.1,50,000/- dated 05.10.2023 from his account with The
Panchmahal District Cooperative Bank Limited. The cheque was
deposited by the applicant in his account with Bank of Baroda,
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 send any reply to the notice and did not repay the amount
within the stipulated period, and hence, the applicant filed a
criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Godhra which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.158 of
2024. The respondent no.1 was duly served with summons and
appeared before the learned Trial Court and after his plea was
recorded, the applicant produced the oral and documentary
evidences to prove that the cheque was issued for the legally
enforceable due amount to the applicant. During the cross-
examination, the respondent no.1 could not rebut the
presumption, and even though, the financial capacity was not
challenged. the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6486/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
and order was pleased to acquit the respondent no.1 from the
offence under Section 138 of the negotiable instruments act
mainly on the ground that the applicant did not have the
financial capacity to pay the applicant. Learned advocate
submits that the applicant is a businessman and the financial
capacity was not under challenge and no defence was raised by
the respondent no.1 as the only defence was stated in the
statement recorded in Section 313 of Code of Criminal
Procedure was that the applicant had wrongly taken the cheque
and had filled the amount. The respondent no.1 did not examine
any witnesses and did not state as to how the cheque came into
the possession of the applicant whereas the applicant had
proved that the cheque in question was issued for the legally
enforceable debt. The applicant has a good case of merits but
the evidence has not been appreciated in proper perspective
by the learned Trial Court and hence the application must be
allowed.
5. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the respondent State
has submitted that the learned Trial Court has considered all the
documents produced by the applicant and has also considered
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/6486/2025 ORDER DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
the evidence and has passed the impugned order of acquittal
considering the settled principles of law and hence, the leave to
appeal may not be granted.
6. Considering the submissions of learned advocate for
the applicant as also on perusal of the paper book on record and
the judgement and order of acquittal, prima facie, it appears
that the documents have not been appreciated in proper
perspective by the learned Trial Court. 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
