1 2025:CGHC:24462 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 607 of 2024 • Shivam Refractories Through Director/partner - Chhabilal Patel S/o Rupdhar Patel, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Jaidurga Mandir Road, Village Sagarpali, Police Station Saraipali, District Mahasamund (C.G.) ... Appellant versus • Rohit Mittal S/o Subhash Mittal Aged About 30 Years Prop. R.M. Logistics, R/o Kewdabadi, Beside Road Of Bus Stand 1 K.M. Siddhi Vinayak Colony, Gali No. 1, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board PRIYANKA VERMA Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.06.17 14:19:28 +0530 2 16/06/2025 1. The appellant has filed this Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali, District Mahasamund in Criminal Case No.437/2016, whereby the respondent/accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that today he has filed a covering memo that the entire amount has already been received by the appellant. He would further submit that as the respondent/accused has already been acquitted, therefore he does not want to press the grounds of the appeal. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would support the impugned judgment and submit that there is no legal provision for withdrawal of the appeal. However, he would not dispute that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties outside the Court and the respondent/accused has already been refunded the entire amount of money and there are no dues. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and other documents annexed with the Appeal carefully. 5. Admittedly, there is no legal provision for withdrawal of the criminal appeal, but considering the fact that an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties and also considering that the offence is compoundable in nature, further considering the reason assigned by the 3 trial Court and the fact that the counsel for the appellant does not press the grounds of the appeal, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is a possible one. 6. Accordingly, on both the scores, the Acquittal Appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Priyanka