1 2025:CGHC:20980 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 136 of 2025 • Yogesh Valryani S/o Shri Ramesh Varlyani Aged About 48 Years M/s Varlyani And Co., First Floor, Blue Spot Building, Shastri Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Complainant) ... Appellant versus 1. B.G. Enterprises Through Proprietor Jairam Mandhani S/o Shri Shaman Das Mandhani, C/o Leela Medical Agency, Shop No. 165, Aushdhi Vatika, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 4920001 (Accused) 2. Jairam Mandhani S/o Shri Shaman Das Mandhani, Proprietor Of B.G. Enterprises, C/o Leela Medical Agency, Shop No. 165, Aushdhi Vatika, Dhamtari Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 4920001 ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 07/05/2025 1. Heard. PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.05.09 10:14:31 +0530 2 2. The appellant has filed this Appeal under Section 419(4) of the BNSS, 2023 for grant of special leave to Appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.10.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.2996/2018, whereby, the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the NI Act”). 3. Also heard on I.A. No.02/2025, an application for withdrawal of instant Appeal. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent/accused issued a cheque, which got dishonoured due to insufficient funds. He submits that despite receiving a legal notice, when the amount of the cheque was not paid by the respondent, a complaint case was filed; therefore, the trial Court has acquitted the respondent/accused. He would further submit that during pendency of this Appeal, the parties have amicably settled their disputes, therefore, in view of the aforesaid settled development, he would not press the grounds in the Appeal memo and seeks permission to withdraw this Appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would support the impugned order. However, he would not dispute that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and the cheque amount has already been paid to the complainant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 3 7. When a query has been put to counsel at Bar as to whether an Appeal can be withdrawn or not, learned counsel fairly submits that there is no provision in the CrPC for withdrawal of the Criminal Appeal. 8. Admittedly, this Appeal has been preferred against the order of the acquittal passed by the trial Court. The trial Court after considering that the complainant has failed to establish any nexus of respondent No.2 with the firm (B.G. Enterprises), as no document has been filed regarding his proprietorship and further, after considering that the complainant has failed to establish that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally recoverable debt, on due appreciation of the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondent/accused. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also considering that the subject offence is compoundable in nature under Section 147 of the NI Act, this Court is not inclined to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. 10.Resultantly, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. 11.Accordingly, I.A. No.02/2025 stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka