1 2025:CGHC:61510 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3804 of 2025 1 - Regent Constech Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Anoop Singh Registered Address- C.262, Phase-2, Industrial Area, Mangolpuri, New Delhi. North West Delhi- 110034 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Prl Projects And Infrastructure Ltd. Through Ritesh Uppal, Aged About 40 Years, S/o Lt. Anup Kumar Uppal, R/o- C.01/48, Sector 07, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)..........(Complainant) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sachin Nidhi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 17/12/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 being aggrieved by the order of revision dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Court of Learned Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) whereby the revision filed against the order of registration of complaint case having Criminal Case No. 1903/2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class Raipur dated 16.03.2020 has been dismissed by the Revisional Court. 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the accused, the respondent is the complainant before the trial court for the sake of brevity the parties will be referred as per the status before the trial court. The petitioner and the respondent no. 2 i.e., Complainant namely PRL Projects & Infrastructure Ltd. had business relations with each other. As per the complaint, the complainant had rented out his machines to the petitioner under a contract, which continued from 24.09.2018 to 16.12.2019, for which the petitioner issued a cheque in favour of the complainant. As per the version of the complainant, the cheque bearing no. 114516 dated 06.01.2020 was given by the petitioner as part payment of the rent. The complainant presented the cheque before the bank on 17.01.2020, which was dishonoured citing the reason as “Alteration on instrument” on the date mentioned in the cheque. After the dishonour of the said cheque, the complainant sent a notice through his advocate on 31.01.2020 demanding the payment of cheque amount RS. 200000/- (Twenty Lakh Rupees) and also requested for the issuance of new cheque, within 15 days from the date of receiving the notice. Thereafter, the respondent/complainant filed a complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner before the learned JMFC court on 13.03.2020. The copy of complaint filed by the respondent/complaint is annexed as Annexure P-2. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) registered the case against the petitioner on 16.03.2020. The copy of order of registration passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Case no. 1903/2020 dated 16.03.2020 is annexed as Annexure P-3. Furthermore, the petitioner made an application for revision before the Court of learned Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur which was dismissed on 14.08.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of registration of case against the petitioner is made without 3 providing any proper reasoning. The learned court below failed to appreciate that the cheque was returned only on the basis of alteration of instrument found on the face of the instrument. He would further submit that the ingredients of Section 138 are not made out in the present case against the petitioner as per the provisions of section 138. The provisions of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides for the following essential conditions : • The cheque should be issued by the cheque drawer on his own bank account. • The cheque should be presented to the bank within stipulated time. • The cheque has been dishonoured on grounds of "funds insufficient" or the cheque in question is for amount greater than the amount provided for payment under the agreement with bank" 4. The conditions essential for the case of dishonour of cheque are not present in the case. The registration of case was done solely on the basis of "alteration of instrument". The alteration in the instrument relates to the date in the cheque amounts to material alteration of the instrument. It is apparent from the complaint that the reason for dishonour of the cheque was "alteration on instrument". 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, it is shown that the trial court has observed as under: “Upon observation of the case, it is shown that upon perusal of the cheque, cheque return memo, legal demand notice, postal receipt and other documents presented with the complaint, there appears to be sufficient basis prima facie to take cognizance of the offence under Section 4 138 of NIA against the accused persons. Therefore, cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of NIA is taken against the accused persons.” 7. Thus, in the context of the above principle, considering the facts of the present case, it appears that in this case also this fact can only be evaluated on the basis of evidence as to whether the cheque was issued for the discharge of any liability but despite having sufficient funds in the account, the bank returned the cheque only on the basis of “Alteration of Document”. Therefore, it is not possible for the trial court to determine these facts at the stage of registration of case. 8. Consequently, there is no illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the trial court as well as revisional court. 9. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds, as presented here through the present petition, before the court below. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima