1 2025:CGHC:12529 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 239 of 2025 • Anand Chaudhary (Anand Traders) S/o Inandrev Chaudhary Aged About 36 Years R/o Plot No. 7 Vivekanand Nagar Kohka Near Housing Board Junwani Road Kohka Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) District Durg Chhattisgarh (Complainant) ... Appellant(s) versus • Anil Kumar Jaiswar S/o Adinath Jaiswar Aged About 34 Years R/o 105, Camp - 1 Prem Nagar Ward No. 18 Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) Present Address Plot No. 27 Harivihar Colony Behind Vandana Gas Godown Kailash Nagar Kurud Bhilai District - Durg (C.G.) District Durg Chhattisgarh (Accused) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Lukesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas (Order on Board) 17.03.2025 1. The appellant has filed the present acquittal appeal under Section 419(4) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 22.11.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Durg, District - Durg (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. RCC/2032/2019 by which the learned Judicial MANISH YADAV Digitally signed by MANISH YADAV Date: 2025.04.15 16:28:05 +0530 2 Magistrate First Class has dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution and acquitted the accused from the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has filed a complaint case alleging dishonor of cheque bearing No. 571151 dated 05.12.2018 of Rs. 1,25,000/- payable on Allahabad Bank, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai which has been dishonored and returned back with an endorsement “insufficient fund” on 12.12.2018, 16.01.2019 and 29.01.2019. The complainant has sent a legal notice to the accused on 20.02.2019 which has been neither replied nor the amount of cheque has been paid by the accused which has necessitated the complainant to file the complaint case on 13.03.2019. 3. The summon was issued to the accused, but he has not appeared before the trial Court. The record of the case shows that on 15.12.2021, the accused has appeared and moved an application for cancellation of warrant of arrest as due to his absence, the trial Court has issued arrest warrant. Thereafter, the matter was taken up for hearing on 21.01.2022 and thereafter the matter was taken up on 28.03.2022 for framing of charges. The complainant and accused were absent on 05.05.2022, 20.06.2022 and again on 12.07.2022. The complainant again remained absent on 05.09.2022 and 22.11.2022, therefore, the trial Court has dismissed the complaint on the said date for want of prosecution. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant on above factual matrix prays for 3 restoration of the complaint case and would submit that except these dates the complainant was appearing before the trial Court and very much interested to continue with the proceeding as evident from the order sheet. He would further submit that due to COVID Pandemic the proceedings from 07.04.2020 to 05.02.2021 were hampered and no proper notice of hearing was issued to him causing his absence, therefore, he would pray for restoration of the Complaint Case. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the submission and would submit that the appellant was negligent in attending the hearing, therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Considering the submission that due to COVID Pandemic the functioning of the Court proceedings were adversely affected and no proper hearing could be taken place for these periods, I am of the view that as the matter is pending since 2019 if an opportunity is granted to the complainant for appearance and contest the case on merit, that will in consonance with the principle of criminal law justice. 8. Accordingly, the acquittal is allowed in part. The complaint case is restored to its original number. 9. A copy of the order be forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate First 4 Class to decide the case in accordance with law. Since the parties have already entered appearance before this Court, no notice is required to be issued to them. Both parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10th June, 2025 and thereafter, the trial court is directed to decide the case within outer limit of one year as the matter was pending since more than 6 years. 10. With aforesaid observation and direction, present acquittal appeal is allowed in part. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Manish