1 2025:CGHC:1512 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 825 of 2024 Shashikant S/o Anjani Prasad Aged About 56 Years Caste- Bramhan, R/o Of Officer Colony, Churcha, Police Station- Churcha, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Krishna Kumar Shrivastava S/o Radhelal Shrivastava Aged About 47 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Quarter No.699, Churcha, Police Station- Churcha, Tahsil- Baikunthpur, District- Koriya, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant (s) : Mr. Prashant Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharda Prasad, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 09/01/2025 1. The appellant has preferred this acquittal appeal against the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baikunthpur District Koriya in Criminal Case No. 527 of 2021 by which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution and against the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Baikunthpur by which it has rejected the SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.02.05 10:34:26 +0530 2 revision as not maintainable against the acquittal as only acquittal appeal is maintainable. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant has filed the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 23.12.2019 alleging dishonor of cheque bearing No. 226339 amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- given by the accused due to insufficient fund. The complainant after statutory notice filed the complaint and the learned trial Court taking cognizance of complaint issued summon to the accused for appearance on 26.11.2021. The accused appeared before the trial Court on 10.01.2022 thereafter, the case was adjourned to 10.03.2022 for framing of charges and thereafter the case was adjourned to 13.07.2022. On 13.07.2022 complaint case was sent to the mediation center and again the matter was taken up by the Court on 15.09.2022. On 19.01.2023 both the parties sought time to settle the matter, thereafter the matter was taken up on 11.05.2023. On 11.05.2023 the complainant could not appear before the learned trial Court, therefore, the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved with this Court the complaint preferred a revision petition which was dismissed as not maintainable. So far as order of revisional court dated 09.01.2024 is concerned, the same is in accordance with law. Thereafter, the present acquittal appeal has been filed before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was only one absence and he was regularly attending each and every hearing and the appellant was very much interested to prosecute the case since 3 beginning, as such it cannot be said that he was not diligent to attend the court proceedings and would pray for allowing the acquittal appeal. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the trial court has rightly dismissed the complaint as the appellant was not present on 11.05.2023 and no justifiable reason was assigned by him for his non appearance and would pray for dismissal of the acquittal appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. From the record as detailed, it is quite vivid that the appellant was sincere in attending each and every hearing except on 11.05.2023 which cannot be said the he was not diligent for contesting his case and also considering the fact that the trial Court has not assigned any reason for dismissal of the complaint only on single absent. As such the trial Court has adopted hyper technical view in dismissing the complaint which is pending for last six years, as such the order dated 11.05.2023 deserves to be quashed and it is quashed. 7. Accordingly, the Acquittal appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of trial Court and the complaint is restored to its original number. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 06.03.2025. It is also directed that notice is not required to be sent to the complainant or the accused as they are duly represented before this Court through their counsels, therefore, the trial court shall proceed in the case in accordance with the law. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Santosh