1 2026:CGHC:25099 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3465 of 2024 Phool Singh S/o Samar Singh Aged About 52 Years R/o Bhejinara Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus Gendram Sahu S/o Suklal Sahu Aged About 43 Years R/o Balgi Colony Qr. No. D.S. 01, P.S. Bankimongra, Tahsil Katghora, District- Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) {Cause Title Taken from Case Information System} For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 19/06/2026 1 Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, learned counsel for the respondent. 2 By this petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba, in Criminal Revision No. 25/2023 arising out of order dated 02.11.2023 passed 2 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora, District Korba, in Complaint Case No. 1697/2019. 3 As per the status report received, the trial of the complaint case No. 1697/2019 is pending, and the next date fixed for hearing is 11.09.2026 and the matter is fixed for plaintiff/petitioner evidence. Thus, this case has wrongly been listed under the heading “seems to be infructuous”. 4 Facts of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner and the respondent are known to each other and were having good relationship. The respondent filed an application under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Korba, District Korba, alleging that the cheque issued by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 3.50 Lacs dated 15.12.2018 bearing No. 925590 of the State Bank of India, Banki Mongra Branch, District Korba, to the respondent got dishonoured. The petitioner moved an application before the learned Magistrate stating that since the complaint case was filed belatedly after three months, the said complaint case ought to have been dismissed outrightly. However, the said objection of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Magistrate, vide order dated 02.11.2023 which was further challenged by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, which also stood dismissed upholding the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The said order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, is under challenge in this petition. 5 Mr. Vikas Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate as well as the learned revisional Court suffer from illegality and infirmity and without considering the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the order has been passed. In fact, the learned Magistrate ought to have rejected the complaint 3 case at the threshold as there was a delay in lodging the complaint by three months after sending the legal notice. 6 On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the complainant/respondent has satisfactorily explained the cause of delay which has duly been taken into consideration while rejecting the application filed by the petitioner which has further been upheld by the learned revisional Court. There is a concurrent finding by two Courts below and as such, this petition deserves to be dismissed. 7 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 8 This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court as well as the learned revisional Court have not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error while passing the impugned orders. It transpires that the complainant/respondent had furnished an explanation for the delay, which was duly considered by the Courts below before declining to reject the complaint. The question whether sufficient cause existed for condonation of delay is essentially a matter within the discretion of the trial Court, and such discretion having been exercised on relevant considerations does not warrant interference in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. The respondent/complaint had duly explained that his wife was suffering from typhoid from 06.03.2019 to 19.03.2019 which resulted in some delay. 9 It is also significant that the complaint was instituted in the year 2019, cognizance was taken, charges were framed on 21.03.2022 and the proceedings have substantially progressed. The petitioner participated in the proceedings and raised the objection regarding limitation only on 29.06.2022, at a belated stage. Such conduct disentitles the petitioner from seeking quashment of the proceedings on a purely technical ground after 4 having allowed the matter to proceed for a considerable period. Furthermore, the object of the provisions governing dishonour of cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act is to advance the cause of justice and commercial credibility. Once the delay has been explained and accepted by the competent Court, the complaint cannot be rejected merely on technicalities, particularly when no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the petitioner. 10 This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any illegality or infirmity while passing the orders impugned herein. The petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 11 Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Gouri / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.06.21 13:13:17 +0530