1 2025:CGHC:35231 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 384 of 2024 Ashfaq Ahmad S/o Late Suhail Ahmed Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, P.S. Sirgitti, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Company Limited, Through Competent Authority, Shop No. 105, Second Floor Rama Trade Center Opposite To Rajiv Plaza Post Office, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Lalit Bhushan Paswan, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Swayam Tehanguria, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/ State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/07/2025 1. This criminal revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal Case No. 94/2021 by the learned 8th Additional District Judge, District – Bilaspur (C.G.), RAJSHEKHAR SONI Digitally signed by RAJSHEKHAR SONI 2 arising out of the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) passed in Complaint Case No. 12358/2013, wherein the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short ‘NI Act’) and sentenced to pay fine amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 01 month. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that the applicant and respondent No.1 executed a Loan agreement No. XVFPBSP00000803836 for availing vehicle finance. At the time of signing the agreement, the respondent No. 1 illegally obtained 36 blank cheques from the applicant as security. The respondent No. 1 presented cheque No. 369327, amounting to Rs. 94,617/- dated 01/07/2013, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bilaspur Branch to its bank without obtaining consent from the applicant. However, the cheque No. 369327 was dishonored due to insufficient funds in the applicant's account. The dishonored cheque was returned to the respondent No.1 on 17/08/2013. Subsequently, the respondent No. 1 claims to have served a notice of dishonor to the applicant within the stipulated period, through an advocate's notice dated 04/09/2013, which was received back to the respondent No. 1 advocate on 11/09/2013. The above claim is totally baseless and unlawful as the applicant has not received any dishonor of cheque Notice. according to mutual settlement between respondent No.1 and the applicant, the respondent No.1 assured that no Criminal Case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be 3 initiated against the applicant, if the applicant makes payment of overdue Loan installment that includes the sum mentioned in cheque No. 369327 i.e. 94,617. Thereafter, the applicant, as part of fulfilling the payment obligation of the loan and further repayment of the loan amount the applicant provided the following payments to respondent No.1: Rs. 10,000/- on 31/10/2013, Rs. 1,89,234/- on 24/12/2013, Rs. 95,000/- on 31/01/2014, Rs. 94,600/ on 28/02/2014, Rs. 30,000/- on 31/02/2014, Rs. 1,60,000/-on 31/09/2014, Ra 04.620/-on 94,620/-on 30/05/2014. Rs. 22/05/2014, Rs. 30,000/ on 30/06/2014, and Rs. 94,620/ on 31/07/2014 and therefore the sum on the cheque is not the "legally enforceable debt". the respondent No. 1 violated the mutual settlement by filing a case related to the dishonor of a cheque concerning cheque No. 369327, with an amount of Rs. 94,617/- dated 01/07/2013. This action is entirely baseless and unlawful since the amount on the cheque does not constitute a "legally enforceable debt," as it was already paid by the applicant. the respondent No. 1 filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the applicant, claiming compensation for double the amount mentioned in the cheque No. 369327 and for the applicant to be punished with imprisonment. upon receiving notice from the learned JMFC Bilaspur, the applicant became aware of the dishonor of Cheque No. 369327. However, the respondent No. 1 has not disclosed the fact to the learned JMFC Bilaspur, about any mutual settlement nor had they acknowledged the payments made by the applicant in 2013 and 4 2014 following the dishonor of Cheque No. 369327. the loan amount paid by the applicant through Exhibit D-1 to Exhibit D-10 encompasses the sum stated in Cheque No. 369327, However, to recover the remaining loan amount, respondent No. 1 unilaterally appointed an arbitrator and initiated arbitration proceedings. Consequently, the arbitrator issued an Ex-parte Arbitral Award dated 24/12/2024 against the applicant. respondent No. 1 then filed an execution proceeding against the applicant before the learned District Court, Bilaspur, to enforce the Arbitral Award dated 24/12/2024. As a result, on 03/05/2018, the learned District Court, Bilaspur, issued a Recovery Order. Overlooking the legal provisions and necessary ingredients of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments, learned JMFC, Bilaspur convicted the applicant vide judgment dated 19/03/2021 in Complaint Case No 12358/2013. against the judgment passed by learned JMFC, Bilaspur in Complaint Case No 12358/2013, the applicant herein has preferred a Criminal Appeal. In Compliance with the Order Of Learned 8th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Case No. 94/, the applicant has deposited An Amount of Rs 32,000/- (Rs Thirty- two Thousands) in the C.C.D. respondent Witness No. 2, Rajesh Kumar Pandey, presented Exhibit P-8, which is a statement related to XVFPBSP00000803836. According to the documents presented, it was asserted that the agreement between respondent No. 1 and the applicant had been concluded, resulting in the seizure of the applicant's vehicle and repossession charges being imposed. The amount received from selling the seized vehicle was included in the 5 remaining loan amount related to the agreement by respondent No. 1. The proceeds from the sale of the vehicle were incorporated into the loan amount on 30/04/2015 and 05/05/2015. Exhibit P-8 indicates that the agreement between respondent No. 1 and the applicant had concluded, and up to that point, the applicant had already paid Rs. 21,76,191/- to respondent No. 1. Hence, it may not be justifiable to assume that the amount mentioned in the cheque has not been included in the paid loan amount, i.e., Rs. 21,76,191/-. respondent No. 1 did not separately mention in Exhibit P-8 that the amount stated in the cheque has not been included, and the payment of the cheque amount is still pending. Hence, this revision. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned appellate Court has failed to consider the material on record and thus, the applicant has been convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act. He further submits that the appellate Court has imposed the amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- upon the applicant, and out of which the applicant has deposited Rs. 32,000/- previously, and in compliance of the order dated 10.04.2024, he has further deposited Rs. 40,000/-, thus, the applicant has deposited a sum of Rs. 72,000/- to the respondent No.1. Learned counsel emphasized that sentence may be modified suitably as the applicant shall deposit the remaining amount within a period of 2 months. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No.1, would strongly support 6 the impugned judgment of conviction and submit that there is no need to interfere with the sentence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and judgments of the trial Court and appellate Court with utmost circumspection. 6. From perusal of the records, it transpires that the appellate Court after considering the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, has convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 1,60,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount additional simple imprisonment for 01 month. I am of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court have not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the applicant for offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. 7. Now considering the question of sentence, as the applicant has deposited Rs. 72,000/- to the respondent No.1 out of fine amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- and he is ready to pay the remaining amount, furthermore, the complaint on the incident was lodged in the year 2013 and thus, more than 12 years have been elapsed, therefore, the applicant is directed to deposit the remaining amount of compensation within a period of two months from today failing which he shall undergo the sentence as has been ordered by the learned Trial Court. Ordered accordingly. 7 8. Accordingly, the criminal revision is disposed of to the extent indicated hereinabove. 9. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Rajshekhar