Gujarat High Court
Mahendrakumar Hanumanramji Chaudhary vs Solanki Naranram Raghaji (Chaudhary) on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9066/2016 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 9066 of 2016
With
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 9068 of 2016
==========================================================
MAHENDRAKUMAR HANUMANRAMJI CHAUDHARY
Versus
SOLANKI NARANRAM RAGHAJI (CHAUDHARY) & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NV GANDHI(1693) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. SOAHAM JOSHI ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
The issue in both the Special Criminal Applications are
one and same hence, with consent of learned advocates
appearing for the parties, both the petitions are decided by
this common order.
2. The issue raised in both the petitions is that the
petitioner who is the original complainant for the private
complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act (for short "the N.I Act") intend to challenge
the order passed in a criminal case by learned Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I Act Court, whereby the
criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I Act
has been ordered to be returned on the basis of the
judgment in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9066/2016 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
State of Maharastra and Anr., reported in AIR 2014 SC
3519, the petitioner intend to challenge the said order
before the learned Sessions Court, however, delay was
occurred and hence, he preferred delay condonation
application before the learned Sessions Court. The same
application was rejected by the learned Sessions Court,
hence, the aforesaid petition.
3. The judgment in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh
Rathod (supra) has later been considered and the legislature
mandate issued in the form of enacting Section 142(a) of the
legislature inserted by N.A Act No. 26 of 2015 and therefore
the entire issued is covered by the amended legislation. This
Court has perused the judgment and order passed by the
learned Sessions Court rejecting the prayer of delay
condonation application and found that the learned
Sessions Court has taken total hyper technical view. The
order is cryptic and without assigning any reason.
4. In view of the aforesaid, without extracting the issue
much, this Court finds that the order passed by the learned
Sessions Court below Exh. 1 in Criminal Misc. Application
No. 496 of 2016 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 498 of
2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly
both the orders are quashed and set aside. Condonation of
delay sought in Misc. Criminal Applications are hereby
condoned and the revision is ordered to be registered.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/9066/2016 ORDER DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
5. Registry of the City Civil Court shall register the
Revision filed by the petitioner and shall proceed in
accordance with law as early as possible keeping in mind
the legislative enactment under Section 142 (a) of the N.I.
Act.
6. Accordingly, both the applications are Allowed.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MARY VADAKKAN
