0.3679229025010423 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY SUBORDINATE COURT) NO. 279 of 2021 REASONED ORDER FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY ==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================================

DHIRUBHAI MOHANBHAI DHANANI Versus RAJKOT NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD & ANR.

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

Appearance:

ADITYA A GUPTA(7875) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MOHIT A GUPTA(8967) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR JR SHAH(762) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR. MEET THAKKAR, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 20/02/2026

JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.J.R.Shah, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent No.2

2. Heard Mr. Aditya A. Gupta, learned advocate with Mr. Mohit

0.3679229025010423 A. Gupta, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. J. R. Shah, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Meet Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2.

3. The essential facts, necessary to decide the present application are as follows:-

3.1 Accused No.1 is a partnership firm duly constituted under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act. Accused No.2, namely Mayur Dhanani, was stated to be one of the partners of the said firm at the relevant point of time. The complainant bank sanctioned and disbursed a loan facility aggregating to Rs.3,94,67,642.86/- in favour of the partnership firm. Towards discharge of the alleged legally enforceable debt and/or liability arising out of the said loan transaction, a cheque bearing No.000188 dated 20.03.2016, drawn on Account No.33490200000176 maintained with Bank of Baroda, came to be issued in favour of the complainant.

3.2 It is the case of the applicant that Respondent No.1-bank instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

0.3679229025010423 Instruments Act, 1881 (“the Act, 1881) against three accused persons; however, the present applicant was not originally arrayed as an accused therein. The applicant asserts that he is not a signatory to the cheque in question dated 20.03.2016. It is further contended that Accused No.2, who was impleaded in the complaint, had resigned from the partnership firm with effect from 01.04.2014, i.e. prior to the issuance and presentation of the cheque in question. According to the applicant, upon such resignation, Accused No.2 was neither in charge of nor responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm at the relevant time, as contemplated under Section 141 of the Act, 1881. It is further averred that in place of the outgoing partner, the present applicant, Dhirubhai Mohanbhai Dhanani, had joined the partnership firm.

3.3 The applicant further states that the respondent bank had been duly informed about the resignation of Mayurbhai Dhanani prior to the issuance of the cheque dated 20.03.2016. It is also averred that a retirement deed was executed between the outgoing partner and the continuing partner(s), and that necessary changes in the constitution

0.3679229025010423 of the firm were effected in accordance with law.

3.4 Since Mayurbhai Dhanani was nonetheless arraigned as an accused in the complaint proceedings, he preferred a petition seeking quashing of the complaint, being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.15639 of 2020, before this Court. The said petition came to be allowed by order dated 11.07.2018.

3.5 Subsequently, after the aforesaid proceedings, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jasdan, by order dated 20.01.2020 passed in Criminal Case No.453 of 2016, directed that the present applicant be added as an accused in the compla