1 / 3 2025:CGHC:2942 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2819 of 2024 1 - Md. Salauddin Jindran S/o Mainudin Aged About 30 Years R/o Beside Kudbuddin Jindran, Shitla Kirana Stores, Nehru Nagar Char Nal Ghar Chowk, P.S. City Kotwali, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus 1 - Ritesh Aiyyar S/o Raju Aiyyar Aged About 30 Years R/o Kali Badi, Ward No. 56, Nehru Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Collector, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 16/01/2025 1. The instant petition has been filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 09/04/2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, C.G. in Criminal Revision No.06/2024 whereby the criminal revision filed by Respondent No.1 has been allowed and the order dated 18/10/2023 passed by the JMFC, Balod in Criminal Case No.198/2020, whereby the opportunity of complainant’s evidence was closed, has been set aside. 2. The brief facts of this case are that Respondent No.1/complainant filed a complaint case for the offence under Section 138 read with Section 117 ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.01.28 18:05:43 +0530 2 / 3 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the JMFC, Balod against the applicant. The said case was fixed on 27/09/2023 for evidence of complainant, thereafter, the learned trial Court given the last opportunity to complainant for his evidence and directed that on the next date of hearing, if complainant and his other witnesses would not remain present, then the evidence of complainant will be closed. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing i.e. on 10/10/2023 the complainant remained absent and his counsel moved an application under Order 17 Rule 1 of C.P.C. and stated that the health of the complainant is not good. 3. Learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the complainant by order dated 18/10/2023 and closed the evidence of complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed a revision before the 1st A.S.J. Balod and the appellate Court allowed the revision filed by the complainant and granted one opportunity for his evidence. Hence this revision by the applicant. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the complainant because several opportunities were given to the complainant, however, he remained absent deliberately, therefore, the revisional Court should not have granted the opportunity to the complainant. He would therefore, pray that the order passed by the revisional Court may be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the order passed by the revisional Court is well merited, which do not call for any interference. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 / 3 7. Taking into consideration the facts of this case, it appears that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if one opportunity of evidence is given to the complainant evidence. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the revisional Court, however, it is directed that no unnecessary adjournments shall be given in the case and the trial Court is also directed to expedite the trial. 8. With such observation, the petition stands disposed of. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu