Gujarat High Court
Maulik Gohel - Proprietor Of M/S ... vs State Of Gujarat on 30 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20067/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 20067
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 34252 of 2025
==========================================================
MAULIK GOHEL - PROPRIETOR OF M/S OVERSEAS THROUGH POA
MITABEN RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
NISHITH K JOSHI(9193) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS. CHETNA SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 30/09/2025
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 24-03-2025 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Civil
Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur,
(hereinafter referred to as the "learned Trial Court") in Criminal Case No.
19954 of 2023, whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the
Criminal Case for want of prosecution as the applicant did not remain
present under the provisions of Section 256 of Cr.P.C. and the respondent
Nos. 2 to 4 - original accused came to be acquitted from the offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the NI Act").
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20067/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nishith K. Joshi appearing for the
applicant and learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the respondent No. 1 -
State.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Nishith K. Joshi for the applicant submits
that the applicant is in the business of Visa Consultancy and that
respondent No. 2 was known to the applicant through family relations.
The respondent No. 2 wanted some financial assistance, and the applicant
had given a hand loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- with a condition that the amount
was to be repaid within two months. Towards the outstanding amount, the
respondent No. 2 had issued Cheque No. "79176" dated 07-07-2023 for
Rs.5,00,000/- from her account with Indus Bank. The said cheque was
deposited by the applicant in his account with the Ahmedabad District
Cooperative Bank, Ahmedabad Branch, but the cheque was returned
unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient." A statutory demand
notice was issued to respondent No. 2, which was duly served, but
respondent No. 2 did not make the payment within the stipulated period
and hence, the applicant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of
the NI Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad
(Rural) at Mirzapur, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 19954 of
2021. The learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and issued
summons to respondent No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 appeared before
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20067/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
the Trial Court and the plea was recorded at Exh. 4 and the matter was
pending for cross-examination of the applicant. The applicant filed his
affidavit of examination-in-chief and also filed all the documents on
which he relied to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned
advocate for the applicant submits that the applicant had also filed an
application at Exhibit 7 under Section 143(A)(2) of the NI Act, which
was kept pending for hearing. The applicant and his learned advocate
remained present on each date before the Trial Court, but the cross-
examination of the applicant was not taken, as the respondent No. 2
preferred exemption applications, which were allowed. Learned advocate
for the applicant submits that even though the evidence of the applicant
was on record and the applications at Exhibits 7 was to be heard, the Trial
Court, by the impugned judgment and order, dismissed the case for want
of prosecution. It is submitted that the applicant has a good case on merits
and that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the evidence already on
record was sufficient to prove the case against respondent No. 2 beyond
reasonable doubt, hence, the application seeking leave to appeal deserves
to be granted
4. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the respondent No 1 - State and
has submitted that learned trial Court has considered the absence of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/20067/2025 ORDER DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
applicant and passed the impugned order and hence application may be
rejected.
5. Considering the submissions of learned advocate for the applicant
and on perusal of the copy of the Rojkam, the applicant had produced his
affidavit of examination-in-chief and documentary evidence on record,
however, the learned trial Court, has failed to appreciate the evidence in
proper perspective and has passed the impugned order and dismissed the
case for want of prosecution. The application seeking leave to appeal
deserves consideration and consequently, the application is allowed.
(S. V. PINTO,J)
VVM
