##PAGE1##

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/832/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

0.8526658420145066

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ACQUITTAL -

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 832 of 2006

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

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

DR. ANILBHAI DINESHCHANDRA CHAUHAN Versus

THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR NK MAJMUDAR(430) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR MIREN PRIYADARSHI(11023) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MS RATNA VORA(2251) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

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

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR

Date : 25/03/2026

JUDGMENT

[1.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “CrPC”), the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside of the judgment and order dated 16.11.2006 rendered by the learned 6^th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar (for short “learned Magistrate”) in Criminal Case No.6612/2005, whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to acquit the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”).

[2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar for the applicant, learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval for respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat

Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Mar 29 07:49:08 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/832/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

0.8526658420145066

and learned advocate Ms. Ratna Vora for the respondent No.2.

[3.0] It is the case of the applicant – original complainant that the applicant and respondent No.2 – original accused both are Doctors and relatives. It is the further case of applicant that on 28.02.2005, the respondent No.2 – accused borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the applicant and thereafter again, the accused borrowed another Rs.75,000/- from the applicant and thus, in all Rs.1,25,000/- were borrowed by the respondent No.2 from the present applicant towards which the respondent No.2 had issued a cheque dated 15.05.2005 drawn in favor of the applicant. It is further the case that on 13.05.2005, a call was made by the respondent No.2 to the applicant telling not to deposit the cheque and thereafter, on 19.05.2005, promissory note was executed by respondent No.2 in favor of the present applicant. Thereafter, on an assurance by respondent No.2, the applicant deposited the cheque for realization on 03.08.2005 however, the same was dishonored and received by the applicant with an endorsement of “stop payment”. Therefore, the applicant issued statutory notice through advocate on 30.09.2005 to respondent No.2 under Section 138 of the NI Act which was served on 04.10.2005 however, no payment was made by respondent No.2 and therefore, the complaint being Criminal Case No.6612/2005 was filed before the learned Magistrate, Gandhinagar for the offence under Section 138 of the NI

Act.

[3.1] The learned Magistrate after full-fledged trial acquitted the respondent No.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the applicant has

filed the present revision application.

[4.0] Learned advocate Mr. N.K. Majmudar appearing for the

Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MR. AJAY C MENON(HC00939) on Wed Mar 25 2026 Downloaded on : Sun Mar 29 07:49:08 IST 2026

NEUTRAL CITATION

R/CR.RA/832/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/03/2026

0.8526658420145066

applicant has submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed a grave error in acquitting respondent No.2. He has submitted that the applicant had helped respondent No.2 and lent Rs.1,25,000/- towards repayment of which, respondent No.2 had issued the cheque in question which on presentation was not honored as the respondent No.2 had stopped t