1 2025:CGHC:678 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 609 of 2024 1 - Arun Kumar Pandey S/o. J. N. Pandey, Aged About 35 Years R/o. Radhakrishna Temple, Jawahar Nagar, Jawahar Nagar, Ward, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Ranu Soni W/o. Motilal Soni, R/o. Karma Chowk, Behind Pooja Electricals, Ram Nagar, Sant Ram Das Ward, Police Chowki Ram Nagar, P. S. Gudhiyari, Tehsil And, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sourabh Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 06.01.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Case No. 3036/2018 by which the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act, 1881”) has been dismissed for want of prosecution. 2. The brief facts as reflected from records are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 alleging that he has given Rs. 3 lac to the accused for some pe`rsonal affairs. When he demanded the same to the accused, she had given a cheque bearing ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.02.05 10:50:23 +0530 2 No. 490915 dated 24.01.2018 drawn in District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Branch- Choubey Colony, Raipur which was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused on 09.02.2018 but she did not return the amount to the complaint, which has compelled him to file complaint on 01.03.2018 under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881. 3. Learned trial Court after taking cognizance of the matter, issued notice to the accused and fixed the matter on 17.09.2019 for complainant evidence. On that date, the complainant sought adjournment which was allowed and the trial Court fixed the case for 05.11.2019, 29.11.2019, 16.01.2020, 05.04.2021. Thereafter not only the nation but also the entire world was affecting with Covid-19 pandemic, therefore, all the proceedings of the trial Court were kept in abeyance due to Covid-19 pandemic upto 28.02.2022. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on 09.03.2022, 23.04.2022, 25.06.2022, 12.07.2022, 13.09.2022, 09.11.2022. On 09.11.2022, the complainant could not appear before the trial Court, therefore, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 has dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 09.11.2022, the appellant preferred the petition bearing CRMP No. 2116/2022 which has been converted into regular acquittal appeal vide this Court’s order dated 18.07.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on 09.11.2022, the counsel for the appellant could not inform the appellant to appear before the trial Court, therefore, he could not appear before the trial Court and the trial Court while passing the impugned order has failed 3 to appreciate that it was the first instance when the appellant did not appear before the trial Court, therefore, the order dated 09.11.2022 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law which is liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it is not duty of the lawyer to inform the client for appearing before the trial Court on each and every appearance. After Covid-19 pandemic, sufficient opportunity has already been granted by the learned trial Court for his participation in the proceeding still he could not appear, therefore, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 09.03.2022 dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant, which is just and proper which does not warrant any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 8. It is admitted fact that the complainant was ignorant and negligence towards the court proceedings, therefore, it cannot be said that the lawyer should be held responsible for dismissal of the complaint as no material has been placed on record by the complainant that he was prosecuting with the proceeding sincerely, but looking to the facts of the case that the complaint was dismissed not on merit on 09.03.2022, but for want of prosecution, as such the complainant needed one opportunity to participate in the proceedings. 9. Accordingly, the complaint case is restored to its original number and the impugned order dated 09.03.2022 is quashed. The trial Court is directed to decide the same on merits in accordance with law within an 4 outer limit of one year and six months from the date of first appearance of the parties. 10. Since the parties have already appeared before this Court, as such no notice is required to be issued by the trial Court and the parties are directed to appear before the concerned court on 18.03.2025 for further proceeding. The Registry is directed to transmit the record to the trial Court immediately. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant appeal is allowed. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun