1 2025:CGHC:52609 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2147 of 2025 1 - Shivkumar S/o Anand Ram Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village- Potka, Post- Jamdih, P.S. Lakhanpur Distt.- Surguja, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - O.S.R. Associates Through Pro. Ravi Singh S/o Dharamnath Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Quarter No. S.4G22, Vasundhara Vihar, Godhanpur, P.S. Gandhinagar, Tehsil - Ambikapur Distt. - Surguja (C.G.) 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Ambikapur Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Dev Ashish Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ankush Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent No.2/State : Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 28-10-2025 1. The present CRMP filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16-04-2025 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja in Criminal Revision No.52/2024 whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 12-07-2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur in Criminal Complaint Case No.1190/2019 has been affirmed. 2. The subject matter in brief is that, the petitioner is accused in Complaint Case No.1190/2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.10.30 18:54:08 +0530 2 Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘the N.I. Act’) initiated by respondent No.1/complainant. The allegation against the present petitioner in the complaint case are that, the complainant is tractor dealer and the accused had purchased a Massey Ferguson tractor on 07-11-2018 for total consideration of Rs. 8,50,000/-, out of which Rs.4,93,691/- was financed by the Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company and in lieu of the remaining sale consideration of the tractor the accused had given a cheque of Rs.2,44,009/- bearing cheque No.119551 from his bank account No.918010070962474 running at Axis Bank Ltd. Surajpur Branch dated 05- 04-2019. When the complainant deposited the said cheque in his bank account for its clearance, the said cheque was dishonoured by the payee bank with endorsement ‘drawers signature to operate account not received’ and the information of dishonor of cheque was received by the complainant on 06-04-2019. On 01-05-2019 the complainant served a legal demand notice to the accused/petitioner which was served upon him and despite that he failed to pay the amount of cheque to the complainant. Thereafter, the complaint case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed by the complainant on 04-06-2019. The said complaint case was registered, notices have been issued and after appearance of the petitioner the details of the offence have been explained on 12-07-2024. The said order dated 12-07-2024 was challenged by the petitioner/accused in Criminal Revision No.52/2024 before the learned revisional Court which has also been dismissed vide its order dated 16-04-2025 and the same is under challenge in the present criminal miscellaneous petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from the material produced with the complaint no prima facie offence appears to be made out against the petitioner/accused as the cheque was not dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. He would further submit that no account was running in the name of the petitioner/accused in the Axis Bank. The 3 complainant in collusion with the bank authorities got the bank account opened in the name of the accused and also got the cheque book issued in his name and got the cheque dishonoured from the bank and prosecuting the petitioner/accused only to extort money from him. He would also submit that he obtained an intimation from the bank on 15-10-2025 in which it has clearly been stated by the bank that no account in the name of petitioner/accused is running with the bank. Since no account is running with the bank, there was no question of issuance of any cheque in favour of the complainant, yet he has been prosecuted and details of offence has been explained. There is no sufficient material produced by the complainant in the case to prepare the details of offence and to proceed with trial of the case. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and submitted that the petitioner/accused is running his bank account with the Axis Bank Surajpur Branch and after issuance of cheque book in his name he issued a cheque to the complainant towards amount of purchase of the tractor which he purchased on 07-11-2018. Thereafter, the said account was closed by the Axis Bank for non-compliance of furnishing KYC and this was the reason that Axis Bank has informed that the account is not running in the name of the petitioner/accused. He would also submit that had the petitioner/accused complied with by submitting his KYC, his account would not have been closed by the Axis Bank. He would also submit that even if the cheque was dishonoured on technical ground the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is attracted. He would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Laxmi Dyechem vs. State of Gujarat and others, (2012) 13 SCC 375 and prays for dismissal of the present CRMP. 4 5. Mr. Karan Kumar Baharani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent No.2/State would submit that it is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. From perusal of the complaint filed by the complainant before the learned trial Court, Annexure-P/3, it transpires that he made averment that on 05-04- 2019 the petitioner/accused has given the subject cheque to the complainant towards sale consideration of the said tractor which was dishonoured by the payee bank on 06-04-2019. Despite the service of legal demand notice on 15-05-2019, the petitioner/accused has not paid the amount of the cheque and then the complaint case has been filed on 04-06-2019 before the learned trial Court. Although, the petitioner/accused has taken a defence that no bank account is running in the name of the petitioner with the Axis Bank, Surajpur Branch, however, this Court is of the opinion that it is only a defence of the petitioner/accused which has to be proved during the trial. From perusal of the document annexed with the petition, Annexure-P/2 which is a copy of the cheque, it transpires that the cheque was issued from bank account No.918010070962474 which is allegedly running in the name of the petitioner/accused. It is not the case of the petitioner/accused that the cheque itself is fabricated one, whereas it is the defence raised by the petitioner/accused that no bank account is running with the Axis Bank in the name of the petitioner. From perusal of the cheque return memo from the bank, it also transpires that the cheque was not dishonoured on the ground that it was forged one, however, it was dishonoured by saying that drawers signature to operate account not received. The reason for dishonor of the cheque further corroborates the document submitted by the petitioner/accused on 27-10-2025 which is an intimation dated 15-10-2025 obtained from the Axis Bank Surajpur Branch that the said bank account was 5 closed likely because the initial funding was never deposited, additionally the customer did not complete the KYC process which is mandatory for account activation and it was the reason that the petitioner/accused has not submitted the formalities of the KYC, the drawers signature to operate account is not available with the bank and the cheque was dishonoured. 8. Therefore, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to interfere through this petition and to set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court. Accordingly, the present CRMP is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil