IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (AGAINST CONVICTION -

NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT) NO. 984 of 2016 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

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

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

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

RAJUBHAI KALIDAS CHUNARA Versus KANTIBHAI KALYANJIBHAI SHAH & ANR.

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

Appearance:

MR RJ GOSWAMI(1102) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR ANILKUMAR B LALCHETA(12088) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR JAINISH A LALCHETA(12079) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 MR ROHAN RAVAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 18/03/2026

JUDGMENT

[1.0] By way of present revision application under Section 397 read with Section 401 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 05.10.2016 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Appeal No.118/2016 and also the judgment and order dated 02.06.2016 recorded by the learned 11^th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No.50812/2012.

[2.0] Heard learned advocate Mr. R.J. Goswami for the applicant, learned advocate Mr. Jainish Lalcheta for the respondent No.1 and learned APP for respondent No.2 – State of Gujarat.

[3.0] It is the case of the applicant that the applicant was serving as Peon whereas complainant was serving as Professor in M.S. University, Technology Faculty and were known to each other since 1995 and to help the applicant – accused, the complainant had given him Rs.3,50,000/- to the applicant – accused during 2006 to 2010 as hand loan against which the applicant had issued cheques to the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that, on 04.04.2012, accused contacted the complainant and stated that he has arranged money and taking back cheques and accused has issued 2 cheques of UCO Bank, Dandia Bazar Branch, Vadodara of dated 24.07.2012, wherein cheque of Rs.1,50,000/- having No.736452 and of Rs.2,00,000/- having No.736453 of dated 27.04.2012 had been given to the complainant. That the accused has stated to deposit the cheques after Mango season, as accused was doing business of Mango. Afterwards complainant reminding the accused of the money and in that reference the accused in April, 2012 had paid Rs.5,000/- and in May, 2012 had paid Rs.7,000/- in cash. Afterwards complainant has reminding the accused in June, 2012 at that time accused has gave threat to suicide, therefore complainant shocked and in apprehension has filed an application before Police Commissioner, Vadodara. After the said application the accused has in Police statement stated that Rs.2,20,000/- is remained to be paid and that he has paid Rs.12,000/-, said statement is false and got up because the accused has admitted of Rs.3,50,000/- in April, 2012 and has issued cheques to the complainant. That afterwards the complainant has no option but to wait for date of cheques and on the date of cheques before 27.04.2012, the accused sent message to give 10 to 15 days and gave assurance that cheques will be honoured. That on relying upon the assurance and promise of the accused the said cheques have been deposited by the complainant in his bank Dena Bank, R. V. Desai Road Branch, Vadodara on 11.08.2012, which were dishonoured on 13.08.2012 with endorsement “Funds Insufficient”. Thereafter the complainant has issued Notice through RPAD on 22.08.2012 under N.I.Act, which has been duly served to the accused on 23.08.2012. But accused did not give any reply and there is legal debt and accused has committed offence under Section 138 of NI Act. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the complaint against th