1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1158 of 2024 Kushal Prasad Dahariya S/o Late Lal Bahadur Aged About 50 Years R/o Baloda Police Station And Tehsil Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus Ranjeet Sudarshan Tandon S/o Shri Chakrasudarshan Tandon, Aged About 34 Years R/o Baloda, Ward No. 14, Behind Kishore Brothers Cycle Store Police Station Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Harsh Dave on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on board 29.04.2025 1. This acquittal appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class- Akaltara, District – Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (for short ‘trial Court’) in complainant case No. 238/2022. 2. By the impugned order, the complaint case of the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 was dismissed for want of prosecution as the complainant could not appear on that day. The import of the order resulted into the acquittal of the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was represented by his counsel before the learned trial Court and was regularly appearing HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.04.29 17:21:03 +0530 2 either personally or through his counsel. On that day, the complainant evidence was also closed and the complaint case was listed for recording statement of the accused. He further submits that for that purpose, the presence of the complainant may not be necessary. The non-appearance of the complainant was bonafide and also the counsel for the complainant could not appear when the matter was called. Therefore, he submits that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back for disposal on merits. He submits that despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of respondent. To buttress his submission he placed reliance of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh & another reported in (2002) 7 SCC 726, wherein the Supreme Court held that in proceeding under the Act, 1881, the dismissal of the complaint case is not proper, legal and justified, when there is only single default on the part of the complainant in appearance. 4. Perusal of the order sheet of the complaint case clearly envisages that the complaint was filed in the year 2022 and in almost all the dates the complainant was represented through his counsel. It appears that on 09.10.2024 neither complainant nor his counsel appeared before the learned trial Court. The case was listed for recording statement of the accused persons and the presence of the complainant was not necessary for carrying out the proceedings on that date. The Magistrate could have adjourned the case to the next date for appearance of the complainant if so desired. However, the learned Magistrate has straightway dismissed the complaint for non- prosecution which in the opinion of this Court deserves to be set aside. The appellant is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 30th July, 2025, as the respondent has not appeared before this Court, the learned trial Court shall issue notice to the respondent for his appearance before it. 3 5. Accordingly, order passed by learned trial Court is hereby set aside allowing the appeal and matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court for its disposal in accordance with law. The complaint case is restored to its original number. The trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) JUDGE H.Ansari