1 2025:CGHC:35222 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 227 of 2019 1 - Satish Chandrakar S/o Goverdhan Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years R/o Zone-01, Road No. 06, L. I. G.-19, Padmanabhpur, District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus 1 - Mahesh Chandrakar S/o Shri Churaman Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o 131, D, Rishali, P. S. Navai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Shaswat Mishra, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate. CRR No. 265 of 2019 1 - Mahesh Chandrakar S/o Shri Churaman Chandrakar Aged About 50 Years R/o 131-D, Risali, Thana- Newai, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus 1 - Satish Chandrakar S/o Goverdhan Chandrakar Aged About 35 Years R/o Zone No.1, Sa.Na. L I G -19, Padmanabhpur, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.07.24 12:32:49 +0530 2 --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Yashraj Verma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 22/07/ 2025 1. Since both the revisions arise out of same judgment dated 14.01.2019, passed by the Additional Session Judge, Durg (C.G.), wherein the Criminal Appeal No. 0000214/2018 filed by Satish Chandrakar and the Criminal Appeal No. 0000226/2018 filed by the complainant Mahesh Chandrakar have been dismissed affirming the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, in Complaint Case No. 6353/2015, whereby Satish Chandrakar has been convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced till the rising of the Court and a compensation of Rs.37 Lakhs, they are being heard and disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complaint case was filed against the accused Satish Chandrakar on 22.07.2015, by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant alleged that the accused and complainant were partners in a business dealing with the purchase and sale of land/plots. Upon 3 dissolution of the partnership, profits were distributed between them, with each receiving 9,00,000. However, ₹ one unsold plot worth 21,00,000 was left undistributed, ₹ which the accused wished to retain. The accused took the plot and an additional 9,00,000, and in consideration, ₹ issued four cheques to the complainant: three cheques of ₹9,00,000 each and one cheque of 3,00,000, all drawn on ₹ ICICI Bank. When presented, the cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. 3. Mr. Shaswat Mishra, learned counsel for the accused, Satish Chandrakar, informs the Court that he has not in contact with him. He further submits that the accused has already complied with the trial Court's order by paying the compensation amount of 37 lakhs to the complainant. ₹ 4. The complainant, Mahesh Chandrakar, appeared in person along with his counsel Mr. Yashraj verma and admitted that he has received the compensation amount of Rs.37 Lakhs from the accused, Satish Chandrakar. 5. In view of the fact that the accused Satish Chandrakar has already paid Rs.37 Lakhs to the complainant as per the trial Court’s order, which has been accepted by the complainant, no further orders are deemed necessary in the aforementioned revision petitions. Consequently, I do not find it necessary to interfere with the orders passed by the trial Court and the appellate Court. 4 6. Accordingly, recording the statement of the complainant Mahesh Chandrakar, both the criminal revisions are disposed of at this stage. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Sourabh P.