1 2025:CGHC:959 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 646 of 2024 • Shashibhushan Chourasiya S/o Gulab Chand Chourasiya Aged About 40 Years R/o Aniket Food Product Pvt. Ltd. Bhanpuri, Raipur, Police Station Khamtarai, Tahsil And District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant. versus • Om Prakash Pandey S/o S.C. Pandey Sanchalak, Bhilai Bazar Mother Dairy, Nehru Bhawan Road, Supela Bhilai, District Durg, R/o House No. Lig 74, Vaishali Nagar, Ward No. 10, Village Kohka, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondent For appellant. : Mr. Vaibhav A Goverdhan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 07/01/2025 1) The appellant has preferred this acquittal appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 3-1-2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (CG) in Case No. 7245 of 2018 whereby the complaint case preferred by the appellant has been dismissed for want of prosecution under Section 256 of Cr.P.C and the respondent has been acquitted from the 2 charges punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2) The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the complainant appellant has filed a complaint on 27-9-2017 alleging that the respondent had purchased articles from the appellant ,and in order to pay the consideration he has given a cheque in the name of the Aniket Food Products Pvt.Ltd., amounting to Rs.71,667/- dated 15-4-2017 bearing No. 358345 of Punjab National Bank, Civic Centre, Bhiliai, District Durg. When the appellant presented the cheque in his ICICI Bank, Raipur, then on 6-7-2017, the Bank has informed that the cheque deposited by the respondent is bounced due to insufÏcient fund in the account of the respondent, but even then the respondent has not made any effort to pay the amount, therefore, on 8-8-2018 appellant sent a legal notice to the respondent and even the respondent has not made any payment to the appellant. Thereafter, the appellant has filed a complaint case against the respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Being aggrieved with this order, the appellant has filed the instant acquittal appeal. 3) Learned counsel for the appellant would ,submit that from the date of filing of the complaint on 29-7-2017, he is prosecuting the complaint very sincerely which was reflected from the order sheets. On 28-9-2018 learned trial Court issued bailable warrant against the respondent but same could not be served. Thereafter,, on 11- 1-2019 the bailable warrant was directed to be issued through SP and since the respondent could not be served, therefore, on 21-2- 2019 learned trial Court issued arrest warrant against the respondent. He would further submit that the respondent did not 3 appear before the trial Court on three occasions. Thereafter, on 3- 2-2020 learned trial Court issued arrest warrant and next date of 31-3-2020 was fixed. The respondent appeared before the trial Court on 4-2-2020 and submitted bail bonds. Thereafter, the matter was fixed on 31-3-2020 but the accused appeared on 4-2- 2020 and the matter was per-poned but no intimation thereof was given to the appellant and thereafter charges were framed and the matter was taken up all of a sudden on 30-3-2021 I.e, after one year without intimation to the complainant and thereafter, the matter was taken up on 19-7-2021 and again adjourned to 22-9- 2021, again it was listed on 18-11-2021 and again the mater was taken up on 3-1-2022 and thereafter the matter was dismissed for want of prosecution. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complainant was absent from 15-2-2020 till 22-3-2022 and the absence of the appellant was bonafide as during that period lock down was declared due to Covid 19 pandemic and all the proceedings, were taken up during Covid 19 pandemic period, therefore, it is incumbent upon the trial Court to issue notice to the complainant thus he would submit that the absence of the appellant is bonafide and would pray for restoration of the complaint and allowing the acquittal appeal. 5) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that complaint was negligence to attend the court, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint case filed by the complainant and there is no illegality or perversity warranting any interference in the impugned order. 6) I have heard learned counsel fo the parties and perused the record. 7) From perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that the complainant 4 was regularly prosecuting his case without any negligence towards attending the hearing and the matter was fixed for appearance for the accused on 31-3-2020 but the matter was preponed and no intimation thereof was given to the complainant, thereafter all the proceedings were taken without information to the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the absence of the appellant/complainant is not bonafide or there is justifiable reason for his absence in participating the proceeding, as such I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for allowing he acquittal appeal,and the order of dismissal of the complaint case deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. 8) The original complaint case be restored to its original number. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 25-2- 2025. Record of this case be sent back to the trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.01.09 11:10:04 +0530