1 2025:CGHC:16783 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P No.1121 of 2025 Raigarh Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Jagatpur Raigarh Director Manoj Kumar Agrawal Through Authorized Official Chandrabhan Singh Thakur S/o Shri Surendra Singh Thakur Raigarh Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Jagatpur Raigarh P.S. City Kotwali Raigarh Teh. And District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner/Complainant versus Jeevardhan Yadav S/o Tularam Yadav R/o Gram Kotasura Thana And Tehsil Pusoor District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent/Non-Applicant For Petitioner : Shri Swayam Tehanguria, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 09.04.2025 1. Heard on IA No.01/2025, an application for condonation of delay of 26 days in filing the Petition. 2. On due consideration, the said application is allowed and delay of 26 days in filing the Petition is condoned. Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.04.11 18:34:33 +0530 2 3. The Petitioner has preferred an application for grant of leave under Section 419 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raigarh in Complaint Case No.125/2019 whereby, the Respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. Necessary facts for adjudication of the case are that the Petitioner/Complainant has filed a complaint case making an averment that the Petitioner is a Private Limited Company and Manoj Kumar Agrawal is the Director of the said Company, who deals with the sale of tractor trolley as an authorized dealer of Mahendra and Mahendra Company. Director Manoj Kumar was duly authorized to file a complaint in the General Body Meeting and by resolution dated 24.02.2024, It has been averred that the Respondent/accused has purchased a tractor trolley, registration insurance and other accessories on credit for which, he has given cheque amounting to Rs.2,63,112/-. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured and even after issuance of a legal notice by the Petitioner/Complainant to the Respondent/accused, payment was not made, therefore, a complaint case has been filed against him. 5. During trial, the Petitioner/Complainant has filed an affidavit in the form of chief examination, however, he has not presented himself for the same, therefore, the learned Magistrate has acquitted the Respondent/accused for want of evidence. 3 6. Shri Tehanguria submits that the wife of Director of the Company Manoj Kumar Agrawal was facing severe illness due to which, he could not get his evidence recorded, therefore, for proper adjudication, the matter may be remitted back by granting leave. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the documents annexed herewith carefully. 8. Admittedly, the complaint case was preferred in the year 2019 and it appears that the trial Court has afforded ample opportunity to the Complainant for adducing his evidence and only thereafter, the same was closed. Though Counsel for the Complainant has regularly been appearing before the said Court but, he has not challenged said order. In that view of the matter where the Complainant himself was not bothering for his case and not examined his witnesses, then, sole negligence lies on his part, therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly acquitted the Respondent/accused and the findings arrived at therein are just and proper as per the circumstances of the case and as such, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order. 9. In view of above, leave, as prayed for, is refused to be granted. 10. Accordingly, the instant Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya