1 2025:CGHC:25354 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 9 of 2024 • Smt. Reena Mallick W/o Shri Shyamal Mallick Aged About 52 Years R/o Shri Santosh Shri, Durpa Road, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Appellant versus • Rajat Agrawal S/o Shri Lokesh Agrawal Aged About 33 Years Lokesh Ferniture, Mallick Complex, Power House Road, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Samsun Samual Masih, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Krishna Tandon appears on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board 18/06/2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 29.11.2023 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Korba in Criminal Revision No.35/2023, reversing the order dated 15.06.2023 PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.06.19 14:27:18 +0530 2 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba in Criminal Complaint Case No.177/2022, whereby the preliminary objection raised by the respondent/accused in a criminal complaint case which was filed by the appellant/complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, ‘the NI Act’), was allowed by the Revisional Court. 2. Necessary facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant has filed a complaint case against the respondent/accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, in which the respondent/accused filed a preliminary objection, as in the return memo the cheque was not refunded due to insufficient funds, but some other reasons have been assigned. Thereafter, the trial Court, observing that the ground which was taken has to be seen during trial, but the Revisional Court allowed the aforesaid objection; in consequence, the matter has been dropped. Hence this Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the procedure for trial of the cases filed under the NI Act has a specific provision of Section 143 that all offences filed under the said Act, the provision of Sections 262 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall apply. He would further submit that in the summons trial there is no such provision for filing the preliminary objection, so the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court is without jurisdiction and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the objection at the initial stage by observing that the same shall be looked into during trial, therefore, he prays to allow the Appeal and remit the matter to the concerned trial Court to decide the criminal complaint on its merits. 3 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the impugned judgment. However, he would not dispute the proposition that at that juncture there is no such legal provision for filing any preliminary objection. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering that there is a specific provision under Section 143 of the NI Act and the procedure which has been adopted by the respondent/accused dehors the procedure which is not stipulated in the Act itself. Therefore, the order passed by the Revisional Court is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. 6. Consequently, the matter is remitted back to the concerned trial Court to decide the criminal complaint case on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 7. Accordingly, this Acquittal Appeal is disposed of. 8. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba on 30.07.2025. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka