1 2025:CGHC:20473 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 166 of 2023 Vinay Kaniya, S/o Shri Shankar Kaniya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o H-23, Gali No. 02, Rajiv Nagar, Shankar Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus Shankar Ishrani S/o Late Narayan Ishrani, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Bombay Market, Infront of Raj Talkies, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri C.R. Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri D.K. Gwalre, Advocate. Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order on Board 05/05/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 04/04/2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case No.2230/2019, whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, has been rejected. 2. From perusal of the complaint, it appears that a cheque dated 02/02/2019 (Ex.P/1) for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was issued by the NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.05.05 18:36:43 +0530 2 respondent in favour of the complainant-Vinay Kaniya drawn from the Bank, known as Karur Vysya Bank. 3. It is alleged by the complainant that when the alleged cheque was presented before the ICICI Bank on 04/02/2019 at Branch Jaistambh Chowk, Police Station Maudhapara, Raipur in his Bank Account No.134701503776, it was dis-honoured, therefore, a notice dated 19/02/2019 (Ex.P/3) was issued, however, despite the service of the said notice, neither the alleged amount was paid to him, nor even the reply of his alleged notice was given, therefore, he has been constrained to file the complaint, made on 08/03/2019. 4. It, however, appears from perusal of the alleged cheque dated 02/02/2019 (Ex.P/1) that although it was alleged by the complainant that the same was issued by the respondent, but, when he was examined before the Court, it was stated by him (PW-1) at para 20 that he is not aware that whose signature is there in the alleged cheque. It is to be seen further, as reflected from para 22 of his testimony, that the respondent is more than 50 years old, however, when the complaint was made, his age was, however, mentioned as 30 years. That apart, the alleged notice (Ex.P/3) was issued on 19/02/2019, as reflected from para 16 of the complainant’s own admission, but, the receipt (Ex.P/2) for issuance of the alleged notice, would, however, shown to be issued on 18/02/2019. It, thus, appears that neither the alleged cheque was issued by the respondent, nor the notice (Ex.P/3), appears to have been issued by the complainant with regard to the dis-honour of the alleged cheque. Even otherwise, the alleged cheque appears to have been issued of 3 the Karur Vysya Bank, however, no information was furnished by the said Bank that the alleged cheque (Ex.P/1) was dis-honoured, because the respondent-Shankar Ishrani has insufficient fund in his account. 5. In view of the aforesaid background, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment under appeal, acquitting the respondent from commission of the alleged crime. 6. The appeal being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Kamde