1 2025:CGHC:6880 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2449 of 2018 Sandeep Gupta S/o Purhottam Gupta Aged About 42 Years Through Proprietor Sandeep Stationary Mart And Book Depo Dev Shri Talkies Road, Dhamtari, Tehsil- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. R/o Ramsagar Para, Ward- Dhamtari, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus Basant Gajandra S/o Shankar Lal Gajandra Aged About 44 Years R/o Near Timber Bhawan, Gujrati Colony, Dhamtari, Tahsil And District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2018 passed in Criminal Revision No. 41/2018 by learned Additional District Judge, Dhamtari whiled rejected the application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instrument Act in which it has been requested by the petitioner to adduce the document and to call the complainant witness for prove his only defense which is legally enforceable and having under possession of the respondent. PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.02.07 15:07:35 +0530 2 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that the the case of the respondent is he has filed the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act for getting back the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- which has been given by the respondent to the petitioner for the purpose of the business and the cheque has been issued in the name of the respondent of the State Bank of India cheque No. 348029 dated 10.03.2015. Unfortunately, the cheque leaf has been produced before the State Bank Dhamtari on 02.06.2015 thereafter the said cheque leaf has been dishonored for insufÏcient fund, thereafter. 22.06.2015 the respondent has sent a legal notice to the petitioner and the said notice has been received on 24.06.2015, thereafter, the respondent has been filed the matter under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act. The petitioner/ applicant has denied all the allegations and the petitioner has preferred the application under Section 145(2) of the N.I .Act date 23.08.2017 in Case No.621/2015, in which it has been requested by the petitioner to adduce the documents and to call the complainant witness for prove his only defense which is legally enforceable and having under the possession of the respondent and the prayer which has been requested by the petitioner which is a legally enforceable and which is come in the said preview here it is very important to mention that the document which has been seeking by the petitioner which shows that if it is true that the fund has been given to the petitioner them it is mention in the said document otherwise the entire allegation would have falsify and the order passed by the learned trial court without appreciating the fact that the fund which has been given by the respondent on the purpose of the business and the said document has not been adduced before the trial Court vide order dated 25.06.2018 the application has been rejected by the learned trial Court. The petitioner has preferred a criminal revision for 3 challenging the order dated 25.06.2018 the said criminal revision has also been wrongly rejected by the learned Additional District Judge in very technical manner that the cheque has been given by the petitioner to the respondent and the cheque has been dishonored on account of insufÏcient fund there is no question for allowing the application under Section 145(2)NI. Act. The petitioner wants to submit before this Court that the cheque which has been used by the respondent, already it has been cleared by the petitioner in a way back year 2014. The actual transaction taken out between Kanhaiya Lal Kamrani with petitioner and the loan was taken by the petitioner from Kanhaiya Lal Kamrani, in-lieu of the loan amount the petitioner has gave 16 cheques to the Kanhaiya Laأ Kamrani as on security in case if the amount will not returned back to the Kanhaiya Lal Kamrani then he would cash the cheques but as per the acceptance of receipt, the entire lone amount has been paid and cleared by the petitioner dated 30/07/2014 but, the remain cheques has been retained by him with guilty mind. In respect to the payment of loan amount the acceptance of receipt has been executed by the Kanhaiya Lal Kamrani on 03/07/2014, in the acceptance of receipt the three points is mentioned by him that the proprietor of Ambika Plastic and Annat Auto Parts Kanhaiya Kamrani, situated at Vimal Talkies Road, District Dhamtari, issued a receiving receipt on the letter pad of Ambika Plastic and Annat Auto Parts to the effect that: (i) The payments against the cheque No. 178858 issued by Sandeep in favour of Notan Kamrani, cheque No. 178882 in favour of Kanhaiya Lal and cheque No. 606171 drawn on Dena Bank in favour of Disha Kamrani and cheque No. 178879 drawn of State Bank of India in favour of Notal Kamrani, cheque No. 178878 drawn on SBI, in favour of Reshma Kamrani, cheque No. 178877 drawn on SBI, in favour of Kanhaiya Lal have been received (ii) 4 The matter pending relates it would be withdrawn from the Court as I have received full payment against the cheque. ( iii) That I have received entire payment in cash but not returned the cheques issued by Sandeep. But will return later on. The case of the respondent is concocted and prepared by Kanhaiya Lal Kamrani with respondent then among from the remaining cheques, one singal cheque No. 348029 has been given to the respondent to cash the same and the cheque has been dishonored thereafter the present case has been filed the complainant respondent under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act for getting back the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-which has been given by the respondent to the petitioner for the purpose of the business and the cheque has been issued blank and without date that said cheque has been misused by the respondent with Kanhaiya Lal for defaming the petitioner in business goodwill, as well extract the money by way of compromise with the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred a Cr.M.P. No. 1419/2016 for allowing the application Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. and 145(2) of NI Act in the matter of Sandeep Gupta Vs. Rakesh Chajed in which the similar and identical issued has involved The said petition dismissed by this Hon'ble Court other companion bench order dated 10.04.2017. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court SLP (Criminal) No. 7492/2017, in the said petition the stay has been granted on 09.03.2018,over the criminal Case No. 81/2015 which is pending before learned trial Court. The petitioner wants to file the copy of the Criminal Case No. 81/2015 before this Hon'ble Court for perusing the same fact and issue has been preferred by the other complainant party before the trial Court. On 05.01.2016 the petitioner has preferred application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. in the Case No. 81/2015, explaining the purpose for which the documents which having under 5 possession that document should filed by the other complainant. On 21/01/2016 the petitioner has preferred application under Section 145(2)NI Act for calling the complainant witness for prove his only defense which is legally enforceable and having under the possession of the respondent. The petitioner wants to submit before this Hon'ble Court that what the present facts and circumstances is involved, is the identical matter and issue involved in Case No. 81/2015 is the same and in the said matter the Hon'ble Supreme Court had stayed the proceeding of the trial court. The same stay prayed by the petitioner because the both matter is the identical and the issue involved which is also the same, rejection of the application under Section 91 and application under Section 145(2)NI. Act of the petitioner's right to fair trial has been affected when the fact has not being settled and established unless and until the application u/s 145(2) will not allowed by the Court, then the original facts will not reviled. The petitioner wants to adduced the document i,e. Capatial Position till to the 31/03/2013 of Kanhaiya Lal, in that document no loan amount has been mentioned which was given to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order which has been passed by the learned Additional District Judge is illegal which is passed without proper application of mind. The case of the petitioner is the amount which has been taken by the petitioner from the complainant the amount has been return back and in lieu of security the blank cheque which has been given by the petitioner to the complainant that has been misused the same has not been return back to the petitioner. The contention of the application under Section 145(2) N.I. Act it is very relevant and specific the document which is under the possession of the parties it is revealed the actual fact and the witness of the complainant 6 explain the facts, claimed by the petitioner. After adducing the same it is revealed that the petitioner is really a defaulter in respect to the payment or not. While rejecting the application by the learned trial Court as the reply filed by the respondent which is a very formal in nature and they wants to linger the case before the trial court and also it is important to mention if the document would have adduced by the party them the matter will come out fairly. It is revealed that the amount which has been given to the petitioner it is very huge amount that amount is normally the person not taken into the house and the purpose for giving the amount it is relevant mentioned that the amount which has been given to the petitioner is for the personnel and business purpose them it will be mentioned in any ledger or account of the respondent because it is a very huge amount. The document which has been seeking by the petitioner before the trial Court it is the only prove which has been retained by the respondent deliberately harassing the petitioner and defaming the business goodwill also. The petitioner wants to adduce the document i.e. Capital Position till to the 31/03/2013 of Kanhaiya Lal, in that document loan amount has been mentioned under apprehension in advanced which will given to the petitioner. The purpose of the filing of the said application is only to cross examine the complainant witness under the statutory provision. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the judgments/orders of the trial Court, it transpires that no good ground has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case showing the importance of the instant 7 petition to quash the impugned order dated 04.08.2018 passed in Criminal revision Case No. 41/2018 passed by the revisional Court afÏrming the order of the learned trial Court, hence, the impugned order passed by the learned revisional Court dated 04.08.2018 does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error which may call interference by this Court, the petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. 6. It is directed that the trial of the present case be proceed living it open to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses at the appropriate stage before the trial Court, and the records of the present case be transmitted to the trial Court concerned, within a period of 3 days. 7. Accordingly, the instant petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 8. 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