R/CR.MA/4512/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 4512 of 2024 ========================================================== DEEP SURESHBHAI NAYAK Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. ========================================================== Appearance: DEVANSHI P MALKAN(9307) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR. ZAMIR Z SHAIKH(6857) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR HARDIK MEHTA APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Date : 14/07/2025 ORAL ORDER Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule for the respondent State. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 03.01.2024, passed by the learned 11th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat (‘trial Court’ in brief), below Exhibit-1 in Criminal Case No.114110 of 2023 qua the cheque No.100115 for Rs.45,00,000/-, which was returned with the endorsement ‘Insufficient Funds’. 2. Respondent No.2-the original complainant filed a complaint, under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NI Act’), being Criminal Case No.114110 of 2023, as the cheque No.100115 for Rs.45,00,000/-, was returned by the concerned Bank with the endorsement ‘Insufficient Funds’ 2.1. Upon filing of the complaint, the concerned trial Court issued process against the present petitioner vide order dated R/CR.MA/4512/2024 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 03.01.2024 and therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. 3. According to learned Advocate, Mr. Malkan, it cannot be believed that the complainant – Respondent No.2 paid total Rs.1,80,63,000/- cash, Rs.20,00,000/- cash in the case on hand, to the present petitioner and therefore, the complaint in question is required to be quashed and set aside. No other submission was made by learned Advocate, Mr.Malkan, on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Heard. From a perusal of the impugned complaint, I find that the learned Magistrate, while issuing the process, has taken into consideration all the documentary evidences as well as the affidavit filed by Respondent No.2 – the complainant. If, according to the petitioner, the process is wrongly issued and it cannot be believed that the complainant – Respondent No.2 had paid total Rs.1,80,63,000/- it is always open to him to contest the same on merits, by leading the evidence. Therefore, when the learned Magistrate has issued the process after taking into consideration the documentary evidences as well as after referring to the decision of the Apex Court in the order dated 03.01.2024, I do not see any error in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Resultantly, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged. (NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) BHAVIN MEHTA Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: BHAVINKUMAR DEVENDRABHAI MEHTA(HCW0108), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE I, at High Court of Gujarat on 15/07/2025 12:03:13