RAMESHBHAI JADAVJIBHAI SHAH vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/CR.MA/8234/2021 (GJHC240254652021) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE
FIR/ORDER) NO. 8234 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
RAMESHBHAI JADAVJIBHAI SHAH
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HARNISH M PATEL(9978) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR KANVA ANTANI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. M. RAVAL

Date : 07/09/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr.Kanva Antani, learned Additional Public
Prosector waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of
respondent No.1 State. Though served, none appears for
Respondent No.2 - original complainant.
2. The applicant before this Court has preferred this
application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’, for short) for quashing of Criminal
Complaint being Criminal Case No.3404 of 2018 pending
before Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patan under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
Page 1 of 4
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:37 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/8234/2021 (GJHC240254652021) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
1881.
3. The facts, in nutshell, leading to the filing of the criminal
complaint are to the effect that :
3.1 The present applicant and his son i.e. other co-accused
Devangbhai Rameshbhai Shah had obtained loan of
Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) from the
complainant against which co-accused Devangbhai R. Shah
had issued cheque no.21285 dated 17.10.2018 of Axis Bank,
Chandogar Branch, in favour of original complainant from his
personal account. However, the said cheque came to be
dishonored for the reasons shown as ‘insufficient funds”,
which came to be known to the complainant after receiving of
the Memorandum of such written memo dated 20.10.2018.
3.2 It is also the case of complainant that thereafter he
served demand notice upon the accused and upon receipt of
such demand notice the applicant herein had replied that said
notice was replied vide letter dated 26.11.2018 clearly
mentioning that at no point of time had the present applicant
entered into any monitoring transaction with the complainant
and had also clarified that the said dishonored cheque was
issued by his son from his personal account for which the
present applicant had no knowledge and that his son had left
his house on 01.10.2018 and is missing since then. The
applicant had also filed complaint in this regard on
06.10.2018 before Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad.
However, the complainant lodged aforestated complaint
arraigning the present applicant as co-accused. Hence, the
Page 2 of 4
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:37 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/8234/2021 (GJHC240254652021) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
present application.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant would submit that he
is not the signatory to the present cheque and he is not
availed any amount as alleged. Merely because the present
applicant is father of the original accused, the present
applicant cannot be fastened with the responsibility of facing
trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
since the cheque was issued by his son from his personal
account and under such circumstances he would argue to
allow the present application.
4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant has further relied
upon the judgment in the case of Jugesh Sehgal vs. Shamsher
Singh Gogi reported in 2009 (14) SCC 683 to buttress his
argument that when the cheque in question was not drawn by
the present accused nor was the account maintained by him,
ingredients of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act
would not be attracted and has thus argued to allow the
present application.
5. Mr.Kanva Antani, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
would submit that though the applicant is not signatory to the
cheque, the factum of amount being taken jointly by his son
and the present applicant is not denied and has thus argued to
reject the present application.
6. The factum of the cheque being issued by son of the
present applicant viz. Devangbhai Rameshbhai Shah is not
Page 3 of 4
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:37 IST 2026

R/CR.MA/8234/2021 (GJHC240254652021) JUDGMENT DATED: 07/09/2026
under dispute as would be evident from Annexure-C which is
of Axis Bank Ltd dated 17.10.2018 signed by Devangbhai
Rameshbhai Shah. Thus, the first and foremost requirement
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act of any
cheque being drawn by person on an account being
maintained by him is not satisfied.
7. Upshot of the discussion would lead this Court for
consideration of the present application and accordingly this
application requires consideration. Hence, the present
application is allowed. Criminal Complaint against the present
applicant being Criminal Case No.3404 of 2018 pending
before Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Patan under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 along with subsequent proceedings thereof, are hereby
quashed and set aside.
8. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct
service is permitted.
(P. M. RAVAL, J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
Page 4 of 4
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Tue Sep 08 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 08 13:42:37 IST 2026