1 2025:CGHC:3461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2132 of 2018 • Gautam Kumar Ganjeer S/o Narayan Ram Ganjeer, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Viillage Bhainsmundi, Police Station Kanker, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh, ... Petitioner versus 1. Sukru Nayak S/o Dhablu Nayak R/o Tirapoda, District - Raigarh, Odhisa, 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Das Manikpuri, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. Government Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2018 passed in Cr. Revision No.4/2018 by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), whereby the learned Judge has afÏrmed the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker in Criminal case No. 998/17. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.21 19:50:43 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that the petitioner has filed an application for taking cognizance against the respondent No.1 herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(for short 'the Act, 1881') stating that the petitioner has entered into agreement with respondent No.1 for transportation of bauxite from his tipper bearing registration number CG19-BD-4880 and under the said agreement a sum of Rs.60,000/- was due and payable by the respondent No.1 herein against which the respondent No.1 has issued a cheque in favour of the petitioner on 25.1.2017. Said cheque was presented by the petitioner with his banker for encashment. However, the same has been returned unpaid and dishonoured with a note 'insufÏcient funds in the account. On 03.04.2017 the petitioner sent a notice to respondent No.1 through registered post with acknowledgement due informing him about the dishonour of cheque and also calling upon him to pay the cheque amount within the notice period. However, despite receipt of notice the respondent No.1 failed to pay the cheque amount to the petitioner within the notice period and therefore, the necessity has arisen to file the application. On filing of such application, the trial Court issued notices to the respondents on payment of process fee by the petitioner herein. However, as luck would have it, the petitioner could not deposit the process fee in time and therefore the matter has been dismissed by the trial Court exercising the powers under Section 204 (4) of CrPC for non-payment of process fee. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.2.2018 the petitioner has preferred a criminal revision which came to be registered as Cr. Revision No.4/2018, however, the same has been dismissed by the revisional Court. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the orders/judgment impugned passed by the Courts are perverse and not 3 sustainable in law. The learned trial Courts was not justified in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner on technicalities namely for non-payment of process fee and instead the learned trial Court ought to have afforded last opportunity to the petitioner to pay the process fee. Dismissal of case for non-payment of process fee was ordered without affording any opportunity or any peremptory order before dismissing the complaint case. Dismissal of case for non-payment of process fee would not only cause financial loss but has resulted in gross injustice. He further submits that an opportunity be granted to the petitioner and he is ready and prepared to take steps for payment of process fee as directed by the learned Magistrate. As such, the petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment passed by the revisional Court. He further submits that there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. From perusal of the documents available on record, order/judgment passed by the learned trial Court as well as revisional Court, it appears that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanker in its order dated 12.02.2018, stated that the complainant was given four opportunities to pay the process fee for the accused's appearance, but he failed to do so. The complainant was also absent on the scheduled date i.e. on 12.02.2018. 4 Therefore, the trial Court dismissed the case due to the complainant's lack of interest, absence and non-payment of the process fee. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court and the material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that both the subordinate Courts have not committed any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error while passing the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti