CGHC010194292023 2026:CGHC:37040 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1273 of 2023 1 - P. V. J. Narasimha Verma S/o Shri Ramchandra Raju Aged About 56 Years R/o Plot No. 402 Gauthami Apartment, Barkatpura, Hyderabad, Telangana. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Sourab Singh Thakur S/o Shri Bhuneshwar Singh Thakur Aged About 40 Years R/o Civil Line Behind Sdm Bungalow Mahurbandpara Kanker, Thana And District Utter Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Nageshwar Rao Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Dubey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board 19.08.2026 1. The present application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner assailing issuance of notice to him by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, North Bastar Kanker by which learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of the KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2026.08.21 17:58:29 +0530 complaint under Section 132 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the complainant filed complaint alleging that as per the settlement between the accused and him, the accused had given promissory note on 04.07.2021 and later on 05.09.2021 handed over ICICI Bank Cheque No. 082525 for an amount of rs. 13,00,000/- which he deposited to his account maintained at State Bank of India, Branch Kanker on 25.09.2021, but due to insufficient fund, the same got returned to him on 26.10.2021. He intimated the same to the accused through his lawyer by way of registered notice on 09.11.2021 on receipt of which, the accused intimated him that he is depositing the amount in the account, he can redeposit the cheque in the bank account. Pursuant thereto, the complainant deposited the cheque again on 15.11.2021 to his bank account maintained in SBI which again got dishonored due to insufficient fund and bank intimated the same on 16.11.2021 to the complainant. He again sent notice to the accused on 23.11.2021 for the depositing the amount within 15 days. Despite receipt of notice, the accused did not deposit the amount till 14.12.2021 which necessitated him to file present complaint on 07.04.2022. Learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence and issued notices for appearance of the accused. The accused appeared before the learned trial Court on 15.09.2022 and proceedings were initiated and charges were framed against the petitioner on 21.06.2023. Being aggrieved with the framing of charges, the petitioner has filed present Cr.M.P. questioning the validity of the cognizance taken by the learned trial Court against him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is factual dispute with regard to dishonour of cheque on 25.09.2021 and subsequently on 15.11.2021 and learned trial Court without looking into this aspect directly taken cognizance and issued notice to him, therefore, has committed illegality and would pray for allowing the present Cr.M.P. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that once cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court, at this stage, no interference is called for by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the present Cr.M.P. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Therefore, at this juncture 6. Considering the material available on record and also considering whether the cheque was really dishonored on 09.11.2021 and subsequently on 15.11.2021 and thereafter, the notices were issued to petitioner, are the facts which can be ascertained by the learned trial Court by recording of evidence only. Therefore, at this juncture, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, it is directed that he may raise all his defence before the learned Trial Court with regard to cognizance of the offence as alleged by him that it was without appreciating the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present Cr.M.P. is disposed off. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case. Learned trial Court is directed to decide the case in accordance with law on the basis of material on record without being prejudiced by any of the observations made by this Court in deciding the present Cr.M.P. 8. The petitioner and respondent are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 30th September, 2026. Since, the petitioner is residing at Hyderabad he has liberty to move application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court for exemption from physical presence and to mark his appearance through his counsel, which shall be considered by the learned trial Court in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present Cr.M.P. is disposed of. Sd/- Sd- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge kishore