1 2025:CGHC:17267 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1176 of 2025 Radhika Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Shri Jaiprakash Agrawal, Aged About 42 Years, S/o Late Purushottam Lal Agrawal R/o. Shivaji Nagar, Malsay Talab Lane, Kushalpur, Raipur, Tehsil And Dist Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus Dinesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Late Chhagan Lal Dewangan Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Shiv Mandir Karmachari Colony, Ward No. 64, Waman Rao Lakhe Ward, Main Road, Kushalpur, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Bajpayee, Adv. For Respondent(s) : None. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 15.04.2025 1. Heard on prayer for leave to appeal under Section 419 (4) of the BNSS, 2023. 2. The instant appeal has been filed against judgment dated 16.01.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.956/2021, whereby, the respondent (accused therein) Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.04.16 17:34:16 +0530 2 was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "NI Act"). 3. As per complaint of the appellant, the appellant and respondent were familiar to each other and the accused has taken loan of Rs.2,20,000/- from the complainant for medical treatment of his wife and for return of the amount he has given two cheques of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/-, respectively, to the complainant. However, when the complainant deposited the said cheques for encashment, the same returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Even after receipt of legal notice, the accused did not pay the cheque amount. Hence, the complainant has filed complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. 4. The complainant denied the allegation levelled against him and claimed to be tried. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge mentioned above. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the complainant has filed instant application for leave to appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. From perusal of evidence available on record, it appears that the trial Court has assigned sufficient reason for acquittal in the judgment impugned as the cheques were issued in the name of Radhika Enterprises which is a proprietorship firm, however, the complainant failed to establish that he was proprietor of the said firm. 7. In the matter of Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs Kalim M. Khan & Anr [2011 (4) SCC 275], it has been observed if the complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence to connect himself with the firm, 3 mere statement in the affidavit in this regard, is not sufficient to meet the requirement of law. 8. Further, in the matter of Dattatraya Vs. Sharanappa reported in 2024 (8) SCC 573, it has been observed that mere fact that complainant established that signature on cheque in question was of the accused, not enough to raise statutory presumption in favour of complainant, in the absence of other requirements therefor. 9. In the instant case, the complainant failed to explain as to on which date he has given the money to the respondent/accused though he has stated that he has given the money in 3-4 installments, however, said averment is not available in the complaint. Further, in respect of loan transaction no document or affidavit has been executed. The complainant has also not filed any documentry evidence or bank details to show that he has given the loan to the accused. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that findings arrived at by the trial Court was a possible view and the judgment impugned has been passed after proper appreciation of evidence on record. Hence, present is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. 11. Accordingly, prayer for leave to appeal is rejected. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay