1 2025:CGHC:17578 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1950 of 2024 1 - Devashish Jha S/o Late Shailendra Kumar Jha Aged About 46 Years Proprietor M/s Krishi Dhan Bij Bhandar Main Road Dongargaon Dist. Rajnandgaon, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Shivalik Agro Chemical Through State Head Anil Kumar Dubey S/o Late N. G. Dubey Aged 51 Yrs. R/o Mahadev Ghat Road Near Saein Harbal Pro. Limited Bhatagaon Raipur Tha. And Dist. Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Thakre, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Ruchi Nagar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 16/04/2025 1. The present Cr.M.P. under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS”) has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur, in case no. 2006/2017, whereby the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner regarding maintainability of the complaint case has been rejected. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.06.09 15:14:37 +0530 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an accused in the complaint case No. 2006/2017 filed by the respondent before the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (In short NI Act). The complaint case was filed by the respondent on 29.05.2017 with the allegation that there was a business transaction between the parties, as both of them were engaged in fertilizer and pesticide business. There was an outstanding amount of Rs. 3,09,406/- in favour of the complainant, and in lieu of its payment, a cheque no. 912118 dated 10.03.2017 of ICICI Bank, Rajanandgaon Branch was given by the petitioner/ accused to the respondent/ complainant. The said cheque was dishonored by the payee bank on 12.04.2017 on the ground of insufficient funds in the bank account of the petitioner/ accused. After service of a legal demand notice, the complaint case was filed on 29.05.2017. The complaint case was registered on 14.07.2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raipur and process was issued. 3. On 09.12.2022, at the stage of recording of the complainant’s evidence, the petitioner/ accused made a preliminary objection that the complainant had filed an incorrect affidavit along with his complaint and yet the complaint case was registered against the accused. The correct affidavit in support of the complaint is a prerequisite condition, and in the absence of the same, the complaint case cannot be registered and prays for dismissal of the complaint case. 4. The complainant had replied to the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner accused by saying that in the affidavit submitted in the complaint case under Section 145 of the N.I. Act, in the array of affidavit “Dewashish Jha proprietor M/s Krishi Dhan Bij Bhandar” is mentioned but by mistake in the affidavit submitted in support of the complaint case, in the array of the said affidavit in place of “Krishi Dhan Bij Bhandar”, the word “proprietor 3 Rupali Krishi Kendra Kapdah” is typed which is curable at any stage and there is no substantial defect in the affidavit filed by the complainant. 5. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court had rejected the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner/ accused vide order dated 04.04.2024, which is under challenge in the present petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused would submit that there is a material defect in the complaint of the complainant, which has been overlooked by the learned trial Court, and the objection raised by the petitioner/ accused has been erroneously rejected. The learned trial Court should have considered the array of the affidavit filed in support of the complaint, and should also have considered the manipulations in the affidavit. Without there being any correct affidavit, the complaint cannot be registered. He would also submit that the complainant himself has admitted that there is a typographical mistake in the affidavit, which further proves that the complaint was not supported by a correct affidavit, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the preliminary objection and should have dismissed the complaint case filed by the complainant. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the names of the parties in the affidavit are correct, and it is only in the address of the accused, there is a typographical mistake. The accused was substantially named in the affidavit, and after considering the material produced along with the complaint an affidavit the learned trial Court has registered the complaint case on 14.07.2017. He would further submit that the order dated 14.07.2017 has not been challenged by the petitioner accused. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected the preliminary objection which has been raised at the stage of the complainant’s evidence, and the impugned order need not be liable to be interfered with. 4 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 9. The main allegation of the petitioner/ accused is that on 14.07.2017, at the time of registration of the complaint, the complainant had not filed a correct affidavit in support of the complaint case, which is a prerequisite for filing of the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act. From perusal of the document (affidavit), Annexure-P/8 of Anil Kumar Dubey, it reflects in the said affidavit that the name of the accused is shown as “Dewashish Jha Pro. Rupali Krishi Sewa Kendra Kapdah”. From the reply of the preliminary objection dated 28.03.2023 submitted by the complainant before the learned trial Court (Annexure-P/4), it reflects that the complainant has explained that due to typographical mistake in place of “Dewashish Jha, Pro. M/s Krishi Dhan Bij Bhandar” the word “Dewashish Jha, Pro. Rupali Krishi Sewa Kendra Kapdah” is typed. From perusal of the complaint memo (Annexure-P/1) it reflects that the name of the accused in the complaint memo is mentioned as “Dewashish Jha, aged 46 years, S/o Shri Shailendra Kumar Jha, Address- Pro. M/s Krishi Dhan Bij Bhandar, Main Raod- Dongargaon, Dist- Rajnandgaon, C.G.” It is alleged that in the affidavit submitted along with the complaint memo the address of the accused is typed as “Pro. Rupali Krishi Sewa Kendra Kapdah” but the name of the accused is the same. Further, the order dated 14.07.2017 of registration of the complaint case has not been challenged by the accused. The learned trial Court has also considered that the prayer made by the accused for dismissal of the complaint case appears to be an exercise of revisional jurisdiction which cannot be invoked by the learned trial Court and has rejected the preliminary objection. 10.Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, material annexed with the petition and also from the impugned order of the learned trial Court, I do not find any irregularity or illegality which warrants interference of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. 2023. 5 11. Accordingly, the present petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika