1 2025:CGHC:54345 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3354 of 2025 Gopichand Sahu S/o Late Shri D.S. Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o Sarvoday Nagar, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Smt. Sushma Rawat (Nagesh) W/o Shri Mahadev Nagesh Aged About 36 Years R/o Dhimarpara, Near Shiv Temple, Boriyakhurd, P.S. Tikrapara, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu along with Ms. Khushbu Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 07/11/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is heard finally at motion stage. 2. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned judgment/order dated 24.09.2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision Case No. 230/2025 which is arising out of order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was well relationship with the accused and the accused and taken an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- (seven lakhs) as borrower from the complainant due to needed money and on account of that amount, the accused has issued cheque no. 777377 mentioning amount of Rs. 7 lakhs of State Bank of India, Branch Balashram Complex Jail Road, Raipur. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court are completely illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. Both the courts below have failed to consider the provisions under Section 143(A) of Negotiable Instruments Act and passed acquittal order. 5. Learned State Counsel contended that the order passed by both the courts below is true and correct and needs no interference. The trial court has passed the order after considering all the facts and documents available on record. 6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. The learned trial court vide its order dated 08.05.2025 stated that the provisions of Section 143(a) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are directive and not mandatory. Presently, the case is at the stage of complainant’s evidence and many facts in the case are pending to be proved. The learned trial court therefore, rejected the application submitted by the complainant. The said order was 3 challenged by the complainant before the Sessions Judge wherein the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge vide its order dated 24.09.2025 affirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the accused has denied the charges and pleaded not guilty, therefore, to prove the guilt of the accused, the complainant has been given chance to produce evidences. Hence, the case is at the stage of complainant’s evidence. The learned trial court rightly rejected the application of the complainant for grant of compensation at the early stage of proceedings where the evidences have not been produced yet. 9. Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is discretionary provision and the learned trial court as well as revisional court have passed the detailed order for not granting the interim compensation. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court as well as Sessions Court has neither committed any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error and the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on merits. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima