IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1355 of 2020 With CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021 In R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1355 of 2020 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI =============================================

=============================================

NARPAT MOTISINGH PUROHIT Versus STATE OF GUJARAT =============================================

Appearance:

HARSH V GAJJAR(7828) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR UMANG S OZA(10966) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MANISH J PATEL(2131) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR PRANAV TRIVEDI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =============================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE GITA GOPI Date : 01/12/2021 ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) has prayed for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Case No.7214/2019, wherein he has been made an accused in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘N.I. Act’ for short) before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vadodara. The petitioner challenges the issuance of summons dated 22.02.2019 and all the consequential proceedings initiated in pursuance thereof, contending that the same are illegal, untenable unsustainable, malafide and not maintainable in the eyes of law.

2. The petitioner states that he had purchased the vehicle being Maruti Swift bearing Registration No.GJ-06- FK-4360, availing the financial assistance from respondent no.2 – Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. by Hire Purchase Agreement in the year 2013. The value of the car was Rs.6,29,263/-, out of which the financial assistance availed by the petitioner was Rs.4,90,000/-, which the petitioner was to pay to respondent no.2 in 48 equal monthly installments along with interest of Rs.2,45,082/-. The petitioner states that seven cheques in the form of security were issued while entering into the Hire Purchase Agreement in the year 2013. It is stated that it was specifically agreed upon that, the cheques would be treated as security.

2.1 The petitioner further states that in pursuance of the Hire Purchase Agreement, he had paid Rs.5,35,830/- against the total amount of Rs.7,35,082/- and Rs.1,99,252/- was the outstanding amount as on December, 2018. It is stated that respondent no.2 had not issued few receipts against the payments made and as per their accounts, the outstanding total sum was Rs.4,13,350/-. The petitioner states that because of the financial crisis, he could not pay few of the installments due to which the respondent no.2 seized the car in order to release the outstanding dues on 28.12.2018 by issuing a Seizing Authority Letter.

2.2 The petitioner further states that the office of the respondent no.2 in Vadodara region got closed in the year 2015 due to some unavoidable circumstances, therefore, one “Rajshri Credit Corporation” has been acting as a franchise holder on behalf of respondent no.2 and the petitioner was informed about this fact by letter dated 21.08.2015, whereby he was instructed to pay all the installments to Rajshri Credit Corporation. The petitioner, thus states that certain cash payments were made by him to the said Corporation on several dates and for that receipts were issued to him and the said payment was towards the Hire Purchase Agreement in respect of the said vehicle.

2.3 The petitioner states that while entering into Hire Purchase Agreement, he was not provided with copy of the same and thus he has no custody of the agreement. Th