1 2025:CGHC:8016 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1753 of 2018 Mahesh Pinjani S/o Late Bhagchand Pinjani, Aged About 55 Years Pro. M/s Shubh Packaging, Old Dhamtari Road, Sejbahar, Raipur, tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1. Ankur Poddar, Director, Mata Shree Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Reg. Address - Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, Narendrapur, Village South Kumarkhali (Karbala), Kolkata, West Bengal, District : Kolkata, West Bengal. 2. Mata Shree Vinimay Pvt Ltd. Through Its Directors - (A) Hari Govind Murarka (B) - Ram Jiwan Poddar, Registered Address - Rajpur Sonarpur Municipality, Narendrapur, Village South Kumarkhali (Karbala) Kolkata West Bengal, District : Kolkata, West Bengal ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 14.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.02.18 11:50:26 +0530 2 following prayers : “It is therefore prayed, that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 28.04.2018 (Annexure P/1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Class – 1, Raipur (C.G.) dismissing the Complaint Case No. 1962/17 and kindly be restored to said case its original number in the interest of justice and further direct the court below to adjudicate the case on its merit.” 3. Facts of the case are in brief, on 24.05.2017, the petitioner filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondent(s), stating that the petitioner is the proprietor of Shubh Packaging, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing packing materials. The respondents had purchased packing materials from the petitioner, which were duly delivered. For payment, the respondent gave two cheques: No. 010929 dated 24.02.2017, for Rs. 1,00,000/- and No. 010930 dated 03.03.2017, for Rs. 1,00,000/- both drawn on Axis Bank, Kolkata, totaling Rs. 2,00,000/-. 4. The petitioner deposited both cheques in his State Bank of India account at Raipur, but they were returned unpaid by the bank with the remark "Payment Stopped by Drawer." The petitioner was informed of this fact via memo dated 08.03.2017. On 06.04.2017 and 07.04.2017, the petitioner's counsel sent legal notices to the respondents through registered post, demanding payment of the amounts mentioned in the cheques. The notices were delivered to 3 the respondents on 10.04.2017 and 11.04.2017. 5. Despite receiving the legal notices, the respondent made no effort to pay the amounts due. Consequently, the petitioner filed a complaint case against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 24.05.2017. By order dated 07.07.2017, the matter was registered as Complaint Case No. 1962/17, and notices were issued to the respondent. The matter was fixed for hearing on 22.12.2017. Due to the transfer of the presiding ofÏcer, the matter was reallocated to another presiding ofÏcer. However, the petitioner was unaware of this development and, therefore, failed to attend the hearings on 20.03.2018, and 28.04.2018. It is pertinent to mention that another case involving the same parties and a different transaction is pending before the Learned Judicial Magistrate Class-1, Raipur (C.G.). The petitioner regularly appeared before the trial court through his counsel. On 20.03.2018, the petitioner's counsel appeared before the court of the Learned Judicial Magistrate Class-1, Raipur (C.G.), but due to lack of information, he was unable to attend the court of another Learned Judicial Magistrate Class-1, Raipur (C.G.). 6. The petitioner diligently pursued the matter, but due to the lack of information about the transfer of the case to another court, he failed to attend the hearing. Consequently, the Learned Trial Court dismissed the case for non-prosecution vide impugned order dated 28.04.2018. The absence of the petitioner's counsel was due to a bona fide reason and not deliberate. In the interest of justice, it is necessary to adjudicate the matter on its merit. Hence, this petition. 4 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact the petitioner not aware for transferring the case before the another presiding ofÏcer and for this reason he could not appear before the trial Court. He also submits that the learned trial Court had taken cognizance of the matter and therefore, the learned trial Court should not have dismissed the complaint case of the petitioner on technical ground. He further submits that the absence of the petitioner counsel on 20.03.2018 and 28.04.2018 was due to bonafied reason, the petitioner's counsel had appeared on 20.03.2018 in the another case pending between same parties before the learned Judicial Magistrate Class – I, Raipur and searching the another case which was not transferred to the same Court. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the prayers and pleadings made in the petition along with the annexures annexed in the petition. 9. From perusal of the order-sheet of the trial Court, it transpires that the trial Court held that the matter has been pending since 2017. After 22.12.2017, the complainant and his counsel have not been appeared in Court. Due to the absence of complainant and his counsel, the trial Court presumed that they have no interest in pursuing the case. Under these circumstances, the Court had no option but to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant. Therefore, the impugned order of the trial Court is just and proper and interference is called for. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for 5 the petitioner and also considering the reasons assigned for dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court does not call for any interference and accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek