1 2025:CGHC:20434 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 489 of 2024 1 - Syed Amir Ali S/o Yunus Ali Aged About 27 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Modhapara, Raipur District And Tahsil Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/complainant. versus 1 - Yashwant Kumar Mishra S/o Late Shiv Kumar Mishra Aged About 45 Years R/o Adwani Colony, Birgaon, Tatyapara Chowk, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/Accused. For Appellant : Shri Mayank Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Virendra Verma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 05/05/2025 1. Heard. 2. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred against the order of acquittal dated 11.01.2019 whereby, JMFC, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) by invoking powers under Section 256 Cr.P.C, closed the complaint and acquitted the respondent/accused of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (henceforth “the Act, 1881”) on account of non- appearance of the complainant. AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.05.07 10:34:03 +0530 2 3. As per the averments made in the complaint, the respondent/accused purchased a vehicle (Hyva) bearing registration No. CG-10-C-4971 from the appellant/complainant. For the payment of consideration, respondent/accused had given a cheque (Annexure A-2) of Rs.2,40,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for encashment by the appellant, the same got dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent to the respondent/accused, however, despite receiving the same, the cheque amount was not paid. Therefore, a complaint was filed. 4. On the date of hearing i.e. 11.01.2019, when the complainant and his Advocate did not appear, learned JMFC, by invoking powers under Section 256 Cr.P.C, closed the complaint and acquitted the respondent/accused, in presence of accused/respondent’s counsel. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court has wrongly acquitted the respondent/accused. On the subject date, the appellant had gone out of station for some business related work. He also submits that the trial Court had given warning to the complainant on 10.01.2019 to appear before the Court and fixed the case on the very next day i.e. on 11.01.2019. However, on that day, the complaint was closed and the respondent/accused was acquitted, which is not justifiable. Hence this appeal may be allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would support the order impugned and would submit that complainant himself was careless in progress of his case. He further submits that the complainant had never bothered for the same, therefore, negligence lies on the part of the complainant, who has also not shown sufficient cause for his non- 3 appearance and thus, the trial Court has rightly closed the complaint. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 8. Perusal of order sheet dated 11.01.2019 passed by the trial Court shows that the case was pending since 2016 and since 26.07.2018 it had continuously been listed for complainant’s evidence. Further, on the earlier date of hearing i.e. on 10.01.2019 also, the complainant was not present before the Court on account of which, a warning was also given, however, despite of it, on 11.01.2019, the complainant did not appear before the concerned Court. The case was taken up on several dates and the respondent/accused was regularly appearing before the Court but the complainant was not causing his appearance. Moreover, on 11.01.2019 also, when the complainant did not appear in the closing hours of the Court, the case was dismissed for non-appearance and thereby, the respondent/accused was acquitted since the respondent and his Advocate were regularly appearing in the case. 9. Considering the laudable object of Section 256 Cr.P.C, when the accused has made his appearance regularly and the complainant has shown negligence in progression of his case, in the opinion of this Court, the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate is just and proper, and there is no infirmity or illegality in the said finding, warranting any interference. 10.In the result, this Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Avinash