1 2025:CGHC:23475 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1782 of 2025 Santosh Jaiswal S/o Shri Chandrika Prasad Jaiswal Aged About 48 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Village - Lawan, Tahsil Lawan, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Degree Lal Patel S/o Dujeram Patel Aged About 38 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Village - Chhata, Nagarda, Police Station Saliha, District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattigarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Not noticed Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 12/06/ 2025 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing the Criminal Case No.599/2025 pending before the learned JMFC, Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner. 2. Facts of the complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act are that there was a friendly acquaintance between the petitioner and the complainant/respondent and the Petitioner borrowed Rs.15,00,000/- from the complainant and also issued two cheques in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheques for Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2025.06.16 13:48:30 +0530 2 clearance through his bank which were dishonored by the Bank. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner does not have any friendly acquaintance with the complainant and he never took any amount from the complainant. The monetary dealings is between the complainant and one Umesh Kumar Pathak. As the Petitioner was working with Umesh Kumar Pathak, therefore, the Petitioner had issued security cheques in favour of the complainant. He futher submits that after receiving repayment of Rs.15,00,000/- via Umesh Kumar Pathak’s cheque, the complainant fraudulently presented the security cheques issued by the Petitioner to harass the Petitioner which does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 138 of NI Act, therefore, the complaint case/Criminal Case No.599/2025 is liable to be quashed. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition including the order sheets of the Trial Court. 5. The argument advanced by learned Counsel appearing for the Petirtioner that the cheques were given as security may be a defence but not a ground for quashing a criminal case and presently only registration has been done and enquiry is pending, hence the order of registration passed by the Trial Court is neither invalid nor is there any need to interfere in it. 6. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham