1 2025:CGHC:3383-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1023 of 2020 1 - Bhupendra Singh Atbhaiya S/o- Shri Kunwar Singh Atbhaiya Aged About 46 Years Through- Satguru Furniture, Main Road Bajrang Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vijay Kumar Das S/o- Shri R.B. Das Aged About 44 Years R/o- Lig-66, Awanti Vihar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20 .01.2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short CrPC) for quashing of the entire criminal case No. 1644/2020 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, 2 Raipur has issued summons to the petitioner in the said complaint case. The petitioner has made the following prayer in the petition "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and thereby quash the entire Criminal Complaint Case No. 1644/2020 registered before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (CG) vide its summons dated 16.03.2020 for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and also quash the summons dated 16.03.2020 whereby the petitioner accused has been asked to present before the court on 15.04.2020 in the interest of justice" 2. The brief facts of the case as emerges from the document annexed with the petition are that the petitioner is an accused in the Complaint Case filed by the respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The said complaint case is filed by the respondent/ complainant with the allegation that the parties are well acquainted with each other and they were having good relation including the monitory transaction. The petitioner/ accused has borrowed Rs 7 lakhs for his contractor ship work in between the period of February 2014 to October, 2019 in various installments. In lieu of the repayment of the said amount, the petitioner/ accused has given a cheque No. 996175 dated 8/2/2020 for consideration of Rs. 7,75,000/- which was of State Bank of India, MG Road, Raipur Branch. When the said cheque was deposited in the bank account of the complainant, the same cheque was dishonoured by the payee bank on 12.02.2020 due to funds insufficient. On 22/02/2020, the petitioner/ accused served with legal demand notice and when he failed to pay the amount of cheque to the respondent/ complainant, a complaint case was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 07/03/2020 The said complaint case 3 was registered on 12.03 2020 and process was issued to the petitioner/ accused which is under challenged in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused would submit that the complainant has suppressed the fact that the liability of the petitioner has already been discharged but the cheque was withheld by the complainant and has misused the same. She would further submit that from the account statement of the petitioner/ accused, it is quite clear that the amount has been paid through the bank account of the complainant/ respondent and the entire amount was returned back to him. The said cheque was led with him as a security measure and he misused the same. He also executed an acknowledgment that he received entire amount back from the petitioner/ accused. It has also been written in that acknowledgment that the said cheque no 996175 has been burned. She would further submit that with respect to the misusing of the cheque of the petitioner/ accused, he lodged a report before Maudhapara Police Station for which offence under Section 406 of IPC has been registered under the Crime No 52 of 2020 and the matter is under investigation and the said complaint case has been filed as counter blast only to avoid his liability and therefore, the entire criminal proceeding of the complaint case No 1644/2020 is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. The ground raised by the petitioner for quashing of the proceeding of the complaint case that the amount has been repaid and the cheque was given as security of repayment of borrowed amount. The complainant/ respondent has executed an acknowledgment in which it has been mentioned that the the cheque No 996175 has been burned. All the grounds raised by the petitioner for quashing of the complaint case are the disputed question of facts which 4 cannot be considered in the present petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The averment of the complaint prima facie disclosed the necessary ingredients of the offence of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which cannot be said to be incorrect or insufficient for registration of the complaint case and to issue process to the petitioner/accused. After prima facie considering the material available in the complaint case the learned trial Court has registered the complaint case and issued process to the petitioner/ accused, which in the opinion of this Court does not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality We therefore, of the opinion that no ground is made out by the petitioner to quash the proceeding of the complaint case no 1644/2020 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 6. Consequently the present petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.01.29 10:06:26 +0530