1 2025:CGHC:45333 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 142 of 2025 1 - Amrit Kumar Patel S/o Devnath Patel Aged About 35 Years R/o Prem Nagar Kusmunda, Tahsil- Katghora, District- Korba, C.G. (Correct Name Mentioned) (Complainant) ... Appellant versus 1 - Raj Singh Vishwakarma S/o Hondro Ram Vishwakarma Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Matasi, Post- Narayanpur, District- Jashpur, C.G. (Accused) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Nilu Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Adv. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board 04/09/2025 1) Questioning the impugned order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, District Korba, dismissing the Criminal Complaint Case No.3532/2018 filed under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the present acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant seeking Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.09.08 13:25:40 +0530 2 setting aside of the said order and for restoration of the criminal complaint case. 2) The appellant/complainant had filed a complaint case No. 3532/2018. The Magistrate had invoked its power under Section 204(4) of the Cr.P.C. to dismiss the complaint due to non-filing of the process fee by the appellant/complainant. Hence, this Appeal. 3) The brief facts of the complaint was that the appellant/complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, on account of dishonour of questioned cheque bearing No. 006395 amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- of Axis Bank Branch Jashpur, which was issued by the respondent/accused for payment of legal liability. The learned trial Court, after examining the documents and evidence adduced by the appellant, has taken cognisance and has registered the complaint case vide order dated 26.07.2018 and directed the appellant to pay the process fee for issuance of notice. As per the Court’s order, the appellant paid process fee/Talwana for issuance of notice to the respondent/accused on several occasions i.e. on 19.11.2018, 21.01.2019, 18.03.2019, 17.08.2021, 17.11.2022, 22.06.2023. As the notice could not be served to the accused, therefore, the same was returned unserved. As per the order dated 15.09.2023, the learned trial Court directed the appellant to pay the process fee for the issuance of a bailable warrant against the respondent/accused. Thereafter, the case was transferred to another Court where a non-bailable warrant was issued against the respondent/accused on payment of PF on 06.06.2024, but the same could not be served on the accused. On 12.12.2024, the case was fixed before the trial 3 Court for the appearance of the respondent/accused, and on that day, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint case by invoking power under Section 204(4) of the Cr.P.C. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on an earlier occasion, the matter was sent for compromise before the Lok Adalat and the respondent/accused has given assurance for returning the amount and therefore on being his assurance the appellant could not paid process fees and thus the mistake occurred on behalf of appellant is bonafide and complaint cannot be dismissed on ground of want of process fee. He further submits that earlier in compliance of the order of the learned trial Court, the appellant has paid process fee on several occasions and the appellant was continuously appearing before the trial Court, but the respondent/accused has not appeared before the trial Court, therefore, the trial was delayed for which, the appellant has no fault and no delay has been attributed on part of the appellant. He next submits that the appellant was regularly appearing through his counsel for since last 6 years, but instead of issuing a direction to the concerned S.P., the complaint was dismissed as per Section 204(4) of the Cr.P.C., which is illegal and unjustified. Therefore, considering these grounds for the ends of justice, he prays to allow the appeal and remit the matter to the concerned trial Court to decide it on merits. 5) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record of the trial Court carefully. 6) The complaint case was about a cheque bounce of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The complaint was filed in the year 2018. As per the Court order, the complainant paid the process fee 9 times in six years, for which notice/bailable warrant has 4 been issued against the accused. For about six years, the complainant made repeated efforts and remained vigilant towards the case. In such a situation, it would not be appropriate to punish the complainant/appellant herein for one or two lapses. Instead of dismissing the case on technical grounds, its adjudication would be appropriate and just in the interest of justice. 7) Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and adhering to the settled principle of law that parties should be afforded a proper opportunity of hearing, I deem it just and proper to allow the petition in the interest of justice. 8) Consequently, the impugned order, being unsustainable, is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to restore the complaint case to its original number, condone the delay in payment of process fee for issuance of arrest warrant against the respondent/accused and dispose of it in accordance with law, affording the parties a fair opportunity of hearing. 9) The appellant/complainant is directed to appear before the trial Court on 26.09.2025. 10) The complainant is at liberty to take suitable steps for the presence of the respondent/accused in accordance with law and the trial Court is directed to proceed in the matter on its own merits. 11) Resultantly, the Acquittal Appeal is allowed. 12) Let a copy of this order along with the record be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge H.L. Sahu