1 2025:CGHC:17506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 673 of 2024 Hooblal Chandrakar S/o Shri Gyaneshwar Prasad Chandrakar, aged about 39 years, R/o Village Ghughsidih, Post Office Khopli, Police Station Utai Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.) ... Appellant Versus 1 - Jamini Kumar Senapati S/o Shri Vishnupada Senapati, aged about 43 years, R/o Village Dumardih, Utai Patan Road, in front of Mukta Petrol Pump, Utai Tehsil & District Durg (C.G.) 2 - Banwaliram Sahu S/o Unknown aged - Unknown, R/o Village Selud, Bada, Kuti, Police Station Utai, Tehsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Jaydeep Singh Yadav, Advocate. For Respondents : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order on Board 16/04/2025 1. Heard. Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR RAJU 2 2. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.06.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (C.G.) in an unregistered complaint case which was filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth “the Act, 1881”) was closed and respondents/accused were acquitted. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant filed a complaint case through his lawyer on 26.03.2018 and when the case was listed for the argument on registration, on such date on instructions, the counsel had informed that the complainant not inclined to pursue the matter further as there was an outside settlement between the parties. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the complaint case was closed and this appeal has been preferred as the complainant had never apprised to his lawyer for the withdrawal of the case. 4. During pendency of this appeal, when the matter was listed on default, the counsel has made submission on 04.04.2025 that this matter relates to offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881and the said offence is compoundable in nature, in view of Section 147 of the said Act. He would further submit that the parties have amicably settled their dispute, therefore, the appellant is not interested to pursue the matter further. Taking into consideration, the grounds that have been taken by the complainant, this Court has asked to the counsel to obtain afÏdavit of the complainant along with relevant documents acknowledging that there is an amicable settlement between the parties. As earlier, similar nature of submission was also made before the trial Court by the counsel who was appearing before the trial Court against which the complainant had sent legal notice to the said counsel for making such submission. The counsel 3 for the appellant would further submit that he has informed the order on 06.04.2025 through his Whatsapp and the said messages have also been duly received by the complainant himself and he had seen the said WhatsApp messages and counsel is directed to place the same on record on today itself and also append his initial i.e., whether the messages have been sent by the counsel and received by the client. However, no response has been extended by the complainant. If the case has not been registered by the trial Court and prior to the registration, the counsel for the complainant informed that there was an outside settlement between the parties. When the case has not been registered and closed, its effect is dismissal of the complaint in terms of Section 203 of the Cr.P.C against which no appeal would be maintainable as no compromise has been filed by the parties. 5. With the aforesaid observations, this Acquittal Appeal stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge U. K. Raju