1 2025:CGHC:17020 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 998 of 2024 Smt. Ramanpreet Kaur Bhatia W/o Harshdeep Bhatia, Aged About 33 Years R/o 502, C- Block, Signature Home, Labhandi, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus Ranveer Singh Rajput S/o Late Sardar Karnel Singh Rajput R/o Govind Nagar City Station Pandari, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yash Yadav, Adv on behalf of Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Adv. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 11.04.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal is preferred by the Appellant against the judgment dated 02.05.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.2201/2020, whereby, the respondent (accused therein) was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant has filed criminal complaint case against respondent making averment inter alia that due to personal relation, the respondent has obtained loan of Rs.2 Lacs from the Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2025.04.15 15:43:26 +0530 2 appellant for one year and for the return of said amount he has given a cheque (Ex.P-1) issued on 01.09.2020. However, when the complainant submitted said cheque for encashment before the Bank, the same returned dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Even legal notice (Ex.P- 4) was sent to the respondent for payment of cheque amount, however, he did not pay the amount. 3. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence available on record acquitted the accused of the charge mentioned above. Hence, the complainant has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed an application for withdrawal of the present appeal (IA No.2/20285) stating that compromise has been arrived at between the parties and now no grievance remains between them, therefore, the appellant does not want to pursue the appeal any further. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that since the complainant is doing business of money lending without licence, so the transaction itself was doubtful. However, she would not oppose the submission made by counsel for the appellant with regard to compromise. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. When a query has been put to counsel for the appellant, he submits that there is no specific legal provision for withdrawal of the acquittal appeal. 8. Though a submission has been made by the counsel for the appellant for withdrawal of the case on the basis of compromise, however, even after considering the case on merits and going through the evidence available 3 on record, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal, and it is held that the view taken by the trial Court in the judgment of acquittal was a possible view. 9. Accordingly, the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is affirmed. 10.The appeal stands dismissed. 11.Consequently, IA No.2 stands disposed of. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Ajay