1 2025:CGHC:45908 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.239 of 2021 Jagdish Prasad S/o Late Ramratan Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Deonagar, Police Station And Tahsil Surajpur District Surajpur Civil And Revenue District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Complainant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Surajpur , District Surajpur (CG) 2 - Rajkumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Haridas Gupta Aged About 52 Years R/o Datta Colony, Near Rajmohni Bhavan, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur , District Sarguja Chhattisgarh 3 - Arvind Kumar S/o Late Shri Haridas Gupta Aged About 35 Years R/o Datta Colony, Near Rajmohni Bhavan, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents/Accused For Appellant : Shri M. K. Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Shri Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Shri Prateek Sharma, Advocate Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Judgment on board 09.09.2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 27.07.2021, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No.20/2020, whereby, the SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2025.09.10 11:05:04 +0530 2 Appellate Court, while affirming the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Case No.5012/2012, has acquitted the Respondent No.2-Rajkumar Gupta and Respondent No.3-Arvind Kumar from the offence punishable under Section 420/34 of IPC. 2. It is alleged by the appellant/complainant that on 16.01.2011, a report was lodged by him, alleging inter alia, that he purchased the tractor for a sum of Rs.4,32,730/- from M/s Dynamic Enterprises, Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, under an agreement dated 26.11.2008 and has given 16 blank cheques to the Respondent No.2-Rajkumar Gupta and Respondent No.3-Arvind Kumar, who are the owners of the said Enterprises. It is alleged further that he (complainant) has paid a cash amount of Rs.1,80,000/- on 11.12.2008 and Rs.1,80,000/- on 21.05.2009 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Balbir Singh and Ashok Sinha and, alleged further that when he demanded the blank cheques, which was given by him to the said respondents, but, they returned 14 cheques only out of said 16 cheques and with regard to remaining two cheques, it was informed that they have sent the same to the concerned bank. It is alleged further that this fact has come to his knowledge on 01.06.2009, when he approached the concerned bank, where, it was informed that based upon the two alleged cheques, an amount of Rs.2,65,000/- and Rs.1,38,730/-, total Rs.4,03,730/- has been withdrawn by the respondents from his bank account, though the cash amount was already paid to them, as such, the said respondents, despite payment for the alleged tractor 3 in cash, have fraudulently withdrawn the alleged amount from his bank account, while utilizing the alleged two cheques and have, thus, committed the offence as mentioned here-in-above. 3. In order to establish the alleged allegations, the burden is heavily upon the complainant to establish the said fact that from his bank account, the alleged amount of Rs.4,03,730/- was withdrawn by the respondents No.2 and 3, the owners of the said Enterprises, while utilizing his two blank cheques unauthorizedly, but, the complainant has, however, failed to produce even his bank account in order to show that the alleged amount was withdrawn by the said respondents from his bank account based upon the alleged two blank cheques. 4. It is to be seen further that after knowing the said fact on 01.06.2009 that the alleged amount was withdrawn by the said respondents from his bank account, no complaint was, however, filed immediately and, instead, the complaint was made in the year 2009 before the District Consumer Forum at Ambikapur, where, claim of him was dismissed and, was found to be affirmed further by the State Consumer Forum at Raipur in the year 2010 and only after the dismissal of his claim as such, the alleged report has been lodged by him on 16.01.2011 without explaining any plausible reasons for it. 5. In view of the aforesaid background, the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court, have not committed any illegality in acquitting the said respondents from the commission of the alleged crime. 4 6. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. 7. All pending interlocutory applications stand disposed of. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Tumane