1 2025:CGHC:7207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1130 of 2024 Ramkishore Agrawal S/o Late Madho Prasad Aged About 64 Years R/o Village Akaltara, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Bholeshwar Maravi S/o Aatma Ram Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Jogidipa Tahsil Pamgarh, District Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. Aditi Joshi, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 10.02.2025 1. The appellant/complainant has filed this acquittal appeal assailing order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 95/2022 by which the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed for want of prosecution. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant and accused/respondent were known to each other and when occasion arose, the complainant gave money to the respondent and when the total amount reached to Rs. 9 lacs then the complainant asked to the respondent to return back the money. It is also the case of the complainant, the respondent to discharge his liability has given a cheque bearing No. 060447 dated 13.12.2021 for Rs. 9 lacs payable at State Bank of India, Branch- Pamgarh. The said cheque was deposited by the complainant in the bank but the same was dishonoured and ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.26 14:43:58 +0530 2 returned back with a note “Exceeds arrangement”. Thereafter, the complainant sent legal notice to the respondent which was received by him on 30.12.2021. But neither he has paid the amount of cheque nor sent any reply to the notice which has necessitated the complainant to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 21.12.2021. The said Court after taking cognizance of the complaint issued summon to the respondent/ accused. Accordingly he appeared before the trial Court on 06.02.2023. On 27.07.2023, the respondent was not present, therefore, the learned trial Court issued arrest warrant against him and in pursuance of the same, the accused appeared before the trial Court on 28.07.2023. The matter was adjourned on various occasions for the reasons mentioned in the order-sheets of the case as in one hearing the accursed appeared and in next hearing he remained absent therefore, the trial Court has to take coercive step by issuing warrant of arrest to secure the presence of the accused and the matter was taken up on 24.08.2024. on the said date the learned trial Court dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the trial Court on 24.08.2024, the instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant would submit that on 31.07.2024, the appellant/ complainant met with an accident and sustained injuries on his right leg and hospitalized, therefore, on 24.08.2024 he could not appear before the trial Court, as such, the trial Court has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant for want of prosecution. He would further submit that the mistake committed by the appellant/complainant is bonafide and in support of the same, he has also filed the documents related to medical treatment. Hence, the order passed by the learned trial Court on 24.08.2024 dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution is perverse, illegal and would for setting aside the same. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the complainant/appellant would submit that the mistake committed by the complainant is not bonafide and the story projected by the complainant is after thought 3 story, therefore, the impugned order dated 24.08.2024 is legal and justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 6. From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the complainant was sincerely prosecuting his case on earlier occasions of hearing but on 24.08.2024, he could not appear before the trial Court due to an accident causing injuries and in support of the same, learned counsel for the appellant has already annexed the documents related to medical treatment, therefore, the absence of the complainant was bonafide. Considering the fact that the learned trial Court has taken hyper technical view while dismissing the complaint as the complaint is pending for since last four years thus, the order dated 24.08.2024 dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant for want of prosecution, is perverse and illegal, warranting interference by this court, as such, the impugned order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara, District- Janjgir- Champa is quashed. 7. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is restored to its original number. The complainant/appellant as well as respondent are directed to appear before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg on 25th April, 2025 and thereafter the learned Court will proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Since the respondent has already entered appearance before this Court, therefore, no notice is required to be sent to the respondent and if on the said date the accused remained absent, the trial Court may take coercive step for seeking presence of the accused. 8. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class along with original record for compliance. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun