1 2025:CGHC:51649 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3164 of 2025 1 - Dilip Kumar Salame S/o Sampat Lal Salame Aged About 40 Years R/o House No. 138, Village Dorba, Post Khangaon, Tehsil- Manpur, District Rajnandgaon C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indusind Bank Limited Branch Office- Dakshin Gangotri, Supela, P.S. Supela, Bhilai, District Durg C.G. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16/10/2025 1. Present is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS, 2023’) against the order dated 26-08-2025, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Durg, in Criminal Revision No. 172 of 2025, whereby the learned Revisional Court has dismissed the criminal revision filed by the petitioner, which was arised out against the order dated 15-07-2025, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 2235 of 2018, whereby the VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.17 10:22:07 +0530 2 application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 256 of CRPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner is an accused in the Complaint Case No. 2235 of 2018 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, which was instituted by the respondent for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint was filed on 20-02-2018. It was registered on 15-03-2018 and process was issued against the petitioner/accused. He made his appearance and details of offence has been explained on 13-12-2024, and thereafter, the case was fixed for recording of the complainant’s evidence. He would further submit that despite various occasions, time was sought by the complainant to produce their evidence, but the same could not be produced and the proceeding of the case is pending since then. On 16-06-2025, the petitioner made an application under Section 256 of CRPC for dismissing the complaint case in absence of the complainant as well as non-production of his evidence, however, the application filed by the petitioner was rejected on 15-07-2025 saying that, in the earlier occasion the petitioner had appeared in the proceeding and only for one occasion, he could not appear in the proceeding and on that ground, it would not be appropriate to dismiss the complaint case and has adjourned the proceeding for further date. He would further submit that the order dated 15-07-2025 was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Revisional Court, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 26-08-2025, hence this petition. He would further pray that a direction may be given to 3 the learned trial Court to expedite the trial of the case and to decide the same as early as possible. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material annexed with the petition. 4. From perusal of the impugned order dated 15-07-2025, passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 256 of CRPC, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality of exceeding its jurisdiction to decide the application. It is the discretion of the trial Court either to dismiss the complaint case in absence of the complainant or to adjourn the proceeding for any further date and he exercised its jurisdiction to adjourn the proceeding of the case for further date holding that on earlier occasion had regularly appeared in the proceedings. 5. So far as the non-production of the evidence by the complainant is concerned, it transpires that from 13.12.2024, when the case was fixed for recording evidence of the complainant, the proceeding was adjourned time to time, however, the complainant could not produce his evidence before the learned trial Court. Therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the proceeding of the Complaint Case No. 2235 of 2018 as early as possible and shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the complainant without any sufficient reason. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved