1 2025:CGHC:3469 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1856 of 2018 B. L. Gangwani S/o Late Baliram Gangwani Aged About 64 Years R/o Mig -17 Secter 3 Shankar Nagar, Police Station Pandri Mowa Raipur,at Present Resident Of House No. A/2,anand Niketan Avanti Vihar,raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Sandeep Singh S/o Nilambar Singh Aged About 45 Years R/o Navin Nagar B.M.Y.Charouda Tahsil Bhilai District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Upasana Mehta, Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/01/2025 1. Heard Ms. Upasana Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by AKHILESH KUMAR DEWANGAN 2 records and thereafter set aside the impugned judgment dated 29.06.2018 (Annexure A-1) passed by learned Fourth Additional Judge of First Additional Sessions Judge Raipur, District Raipur, in criminal revision No. 32/2018, arising out of order dated 17.07.2015 (Annexure A-2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur in complaint case No. 133/2012, whereby learned Sessions Judge has rejected the revision petition of the applicant and direction may be issue to restore complaint case of the applicant and the respondent/ accused may be punished for offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, in the interest of justice.” 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner alleges that he had given a cash amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondent for business purposes. After 5-6 months, the respondent issued a cheque (No. 895872) from ICICI Bank, Branch Supela, District Durg, for the same amount in the petitioner’s name. However, when the petitioner presented the cheque at Corporation Bank, Branch Raipur, on 03.11.2008, it was dishonored. The applicant sent a registered notice to the respondent through their counsel on 26.1.2008, which was received by the respondent on 03.12.2008. Despite this, the respondent deliberately failed to return the loan amount. Subsequently the petitioner filed a complaint case against the respondent under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an offense punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable 3 Instruments Act before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur. The case was registered as Criminal Complaint Case No. 133/2012. The applicant complied with the court's orders and appeared regularly before the magistrate court. However, on 17.07.2015, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, rejected the petitioner’s complaint under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. due to the applicant's non-appearance, which was a genuine mistake. The respondent was acquitted. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant filed a criminal revision under Section 399 read with Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. before the Fourth Additional Judge of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 32/2018. Unfortunately, the Additional Sessions Judge, District Raipur, rejected the petitioner’s criminal revision via an order dated 29.06.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the both the trial Court as well as the revisional Court are arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the applicable law, the learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court have overlooked the fact that the applicant had consistently appeared before the trial court and complied with its orders. The trial court failed to consider that the complaint case was registered, and a notice was issued to the respondent. The case was fixed for the appearance of the accused on 17.07.2015, but the applicant was absent, and the 4 complaint was dismissed under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C., on the said date, the applicant's counsel had received instructions to appear before the trial Court but failed to do so, and neither did they file an application under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. As a result, the trial court dismissed the complaint case, making the impugned orders illegal and contrary to law. She further submits that the dismissal of the complaint case under Section 256 of the Cr.P.C. amounts to an acquittal, leaving the applicant with no opportunity to recover the amount borrowed by the respondent. During the examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused did not raise the plea of money lending. The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.06.2018, passed by the revisional Court, is bad in law and against the evidence, and therefore, liable to be set aside. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, considered his rival submissions made hereinabove and also perused the documents annexed with petition. 7. From perusal of the record, it transpires that the revisional Court has held that Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that if the complainant is not present on the day of the hearing, or any subsequent day to which the hearing may be adjourned, and the case is dismissed due to their absence, the effect is equivalent to an acquittal. In such a situation, the applicant has a remedy to file an appeal before the High Court against the order in question, which he has not availed and 5 directly filed the revision. Consequently, the present revision is not maintainable. Therefore, the revision presented by the revisionist is dismissed without considering its merits, solely on the grounds of maintainability, which warrants no interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the petition being bereft of any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Akhil