1 2025:CGHC:20758 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No.61 of 2025 Prakash Sachdev S/o Late Chandumal Sachdev Aged About 61 Years R/o Nitin Interprises, MG Road, Raipur (C.G.) Resident Of Panchshil Nagar, West Chrauda Tehsil Bhilai-03, District Durg (C.G) ... Appellant/Complainant versus Sahab Lal Maurya S/o Shrinath Maurya, R/o. Aluminum And Glasses Naya Para, Court Road, P.S. Bodhghat, Jagdalpur District Bastar (C.G) ... Respondent/Accused For Appellant : Ms. Sweksha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Shri Rudra Pratap Dubey, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board 06.05.2025 1. This Acquittal Appeal has been preferred under Section 419(4) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Adhiniyam, 2023 against the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the JMFC, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.2265/2022 whereby, due to non-appearance of the Appellant/Complainant, invoking the power under Section 256 Cr.P.C, Digitally signed by SISTLA NEELIMA VISHNU PRIYA Date: 2025.05.07 18:26:23 +0530 2 the complaint case was closed and the Respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the NI Act’). 2. Ms. Sharma submits that the Counsel for the Complainant has wrongly noted the date of hearing and due to miscommunication, the Complainant could not appear on the said date and as such, there is no deliberate intention on the part of the Complainant for non-appearance but the trial Court has dismissed the complaint case invoking the power under Section 256 Cr.P.C though he has a good case on merits. 3. On the flip side, Shri Dubey supports the order impugned and submits that the Complainant has not appeared on 24.09.2024 and thereafter, the case was listed for further proceeding on 01.10.2024 on which date also, neither the Complainant nor his Counsel has made his appearance, therefore, the complaint case was dismissed. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the Appeal carefully. 5. Having perused the order sheets of the trial Court, it appears that the complaint case was listed for Complainant’s evidence on 09.08.2024 and on the said date, as the Complainant has not brought the relevant documents, the case was adjourned and on the next date of hearing i.e. 24.09.2024, neither the Complainant nor his Counsel have made their appearance, therefore, the case was further adjourned to 01.10.2024 but on this date also, again when the Complainant made a default of appearance, the case was dismissed. 3 6. Considering the submission made by learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Complainant’s Counsel has wrongly noted the date of hearing and as such, there is no fault on the part of the Complainant and purely on account of the mistake committed by his Counsel, the Complainant could not make his appearance, in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court finds it appropriate to remit the case back to be restored to its original number. 7. Accordingly, the order impugned is set aside and it is directed that the complaint case of the Appellant/Complainant be restored to its original number subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the Complainant to the Respondent/Accused through his Counsel, which shall be deposited before the trial Court within a period of 30 days of passing of this order, failing which, this order shall lose its efficacy. The said Court is further directed to proceed with the matter from the last stage of hearing in accordance with law. 8. Both the parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 10h June 2025. The Complainant may also take necessary steps to advance his case in accordance with law. 9. In the result, the Acquittal Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 10. Record be sent back to the concerned trial Court with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE Priya