1 2025:CGHC:54833 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3385 of 2025 Prashant Pathak S/o Devanand Pathak Aged About 34 Years R/o Fortune Finance, Gwalanee Chamber, Near Lift, 2nd Floor, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Tahsil - Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus Pyare Lal Khunte S/o Shyam Lal Khunte Aged About 42 Years R/o 62, Lalmati, Hasaud, Tahsil - Jaijaipur, District - Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 11/11/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed by 5th District and Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 222/2025, whereby Criminal Revision filed by respondent under Section 397 of Cr.P.C./438 of BNSS, 2023 has suo-moto been converted as Criminal Appeal and also allowed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act whereby condoning the delay in filing the instant 2 Criminal Revision without its proper explanation. Hence the present petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has taken loan of a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs from the respondent for the financial purposes. of the vehicles and promise to return the same at earliest and when respondent needed money, he demanded it from petitioner. Then petitioner issued a cheque bearing no. 000012 of AU Small Finance Bank, Gayatri Nagar of a sum of Rs. 1,60,000/- promising that the petitioner will return the remaining Rs. 1,40,000/- after sometime. When the respondent submitted the cheque in the bank then the same was dishonored on 17.04.2023. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the fact that after rejection of complaint case under Section 138 of NIA, appeal shall lie before the Hon'ble High Court but the complainant has filed Criminal Revision before the Court below which is not sustainable under the law and therefore the order of Court below dated 19.09.2025 is liable to be quash/set-aside. Learned court below has also failed to see that after rejection of complaint case under Section 138 of NI Act, Acquittal Appeal shall be filed before the Hon'ble High Court under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C./419(4) of BNSS, 2023 which the learned court below suo moto has converted into Criminal Appeal and allowed the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 3 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. From perusal of record, it is crystal clear that the revisionist has filed a complaint dated 20.06.2023 against the accused under Section 138 of NIA, on which the presence of the accused was sought during the conduct of the case. Regarding the nonpayment of process fees, the case was scheduled for appearance on 26.08.2023 and again on 24.11.2023. subsequently, on the third date of hearing, 13.02.2024, the case was dismissed for non- appearance due to the complainant's absence on the first date of hearing. Despite the complainant's presence on previous hearing dates, there is no prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of the complainant. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the learned Court below condoned the delay of 7 months and the case was ordered to be heard on merits. 6. In view of the above, there is no illegality or perversity or any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the both the courts below. Therefore, there is no good ground to entertain this petition. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima