IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING &

SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 3040 of 2019 =================================================

AJITKUMAR UTTAMBHAND MALU Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR. SURAJ A SHUKLA(7185) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR PRAVIN GONDALIYA(1974) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 22/09/2025

ORAL ORDER

1. This application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is filed by the petitioner – original accused seeking to quash and set aside the impugned FIR being I-C.R. No. 47 of 2019 dated 07.02.2019 registered with Salabatpura Police Station, Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that present petitioner and the respondent No. 2 – complainant are dealing in cloth business and upon having acquaintance, started business. It is the case of the respondent No. 2 herein that he purchased goods (plain cloth) worth Rs.1,50,000/- from the petitioner against which, he issued three cheques of Rs.50,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sahara Darwaja Ring Road Branch. However, as the said goods were damaged, the same were returned to the petitioner and accordingly, the respondent No. 2 asked return of the said three cheques. As the same were not returned, the respondent No. 2 got stop payment of the same. However, thereafter, in April 2018 respondent No. 2 got a legal notice from the petitioner through his Advocate demanding Rs.25,50,000/- as the cheques were returned. As the respondent No. 2 had never given cheques of such an amount, he asked for copies of such cheques from which, it was found that there was forgery in them and the amount of Rs.50,000/- each, mentioned in the cheques, was converted in to Rs.6,50,000/- and 9,50,000/- respectively. Hence, the respondent No. 2 filed the instant complaint for the aforesaid offences against the present petitioner.

3. Heard, Mr. Suraj Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. Chintan Dave, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No. 1 – State.

4. Mr. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner, referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in Eicher Tractor Limited and Others v. Harihar Singh and Another, (2008) 16 SCC 763 submitted that present FIR is filed as a counter blast to the criminal complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) before the learned 6^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat vide Criminal Case No. 26016 of 2016. He would further submit that whether or not, any interpolation has taken place in the said cheques issued by the complainant – respondent No. 2, would be the subject matter of the criminal complaint. Learned 6^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat is competent enough to examine whether the cheques have been interpolated or not but that could not be a reason to file an FIR, subsequent to filing of the criminal proceedings by the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act. He would further submit that since the complainant has not denied the signature on the impugned cheques, presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act comes into play, which is a rebuttal presumption, but it cannot be agitated by way of an FIR. Upon above arguments, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the FIR is a pure abuse of process of law being a counter blast to the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, which is required to be quashed.

5. Per contra, Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2 submitted that an interpolation is visible in the cheques. He referred to Annexure R/1 and submits that three cheques o