1 2025:CGHC:16967 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1127 of 2025 1 - Naresh Kumar Yadav S/o Late Radhelal Yadav Aged About 49 Years R/o Village- Metepar Post Gaulitola, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, Present District- Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Moolchand Sancheti S/o Parasmal Sancheti Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Bazaar Bharritola Police Station Manpur Present District- Mohla-Manpur- Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.). ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ashwin Panickar, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 11/04/2025 1. Heard. 2. Appellant has filed an application under Section 419 (4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohla Manpur Ambagarh Chowki place- Ambagarh Chowki Civil District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) in Complaint Case No.114/2021 whereby, respondent/accused was acquitted of the charges AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.04.15 18:19:41 +0530 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth “the Act, 1881”). 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that respondent/accused has not disputed the signature on the cheque (Ex.P/1) of Rs.3,50,000/- issued by him on 26.01.2020. However, as the said cheque got dishonoured there is legal presumption under Section 139 of the Act, 1881 which was not rebutted by the respondent/accused, therefore, the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges. Considering the backdrop, learned counsel prays that the acquittal appeal may be allowed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Complainant Naresh Kumar Yadav, appellant herein, has deposed that on account of personal relations, respondent/accused entered into an agreement for sale of immovable property at consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- for which an agreement had also been entered into by way of which, respondent/accused received a consideration at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month for consecutive 15 months and in the last 16th month received Rs.10,000/-. In his statement, complainant has clearly stated that entire consideration was paid in the year 2015, however, respondent/accused did not execute the sale deed and for the repayment of the aforesaid advance money issued a cheque in the year 2020. 6. Further, a defence was taken that complainant used to provide loan on interest and as security used to obtain black cheque. Trial Court on the grounds that between 2015 and 2020 complainant did not take any action against the respondent/accused, even during the trial, the said agreement 3 was not filed and proved as also the witnesses before whom such an agreement was executed were not examined, after evaluating the evidence found that the transaction itself is doubtful. 7. For the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is possible one and this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the said finding. 8. Resultantly, no case is made out for grant of leave and the same is refused, in consequence, instant Cr.M.P is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash