1 / 3 CGHC010354122026 2026:CGHC:41637 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2487 of 2026 • Sunny Raj Baghel S/o Prem Baghel Aged About 34 Years R/o Bahadurguda Para, Near Lallan Kirana, Opposite The House Of Shrivas Patwari Rajendra Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus • Pawan Kumar Jha S/o Shri Hem Chandra Jha Aged About 34 Years R/o Ganga, Nagar Ward No. 23, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur, Police Station - Bodhghat, District- Bastar (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge ORDER ON BOARD 23/09/2026 1. This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Samhita, 2023 challenging the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar in Criminal Revision No. 8/2025, whereby learned Revisional court has dismissed the revision affirming the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur dismissing the application for discharge on the ground that the provision under Section 250 to 259 of CrPC is not applicable to the summons case. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has borrowed different amounts on different dates and lastly a sum of Rs. 4,60,000 was borrowed on 02.12.2015 thereby making total borrowed amount as Rs. 9,60,000 from the respondent-complainant. Petitioner has issued a cheque bearing 203604 dated 22.11.2023 in discharge of his liability to repay the amount which was PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 3 dishonored for want of sufficient funds. Respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After receipt of the summons in complaint case, petitioner appeared and submitted an application pleading therein that loan is barred by limitation and therefore complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable and prayed for discharge. Learned trial Court dismissed the application on 18.02.2025 observing that provision under Section 250 to 259 is not attracted in the proceedings of summon case. The order passed by the trial Court is put to challenge in a revision which also came to be dismissed. Counsel for petitioner submits that both the courts below erred in not considering the very issue that issue of liability of payment of loan as pleaded is time barred as the recovery of the loan amount of the year 2015 in the year 2023 is barred and therefore issuance of cheque cannot be treated to be in discharge of liability of illegally enforceable debt. 3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the documents enclosed along with memo of petition. 4. Perusal of order-sheet dated 18.02.2025 would show that the application for discharge was filed only on the ground that recovery of loan is barred by limitation and therefore the petitioner be discharged. 5. Learned revisional court has considered the case of petitioner herein minutely, discussed the dates and events with regard to submission of cheque in bank account for its clearance, and the date of dishonoring of cheque, date of notice and date of filing of case as also considering the proviso 2 of Section 142 which provides for upon recording the satisfaction the Magistrate can take cognizance on the complaint even after the period of limitation as provided therein. 6. The revisional court further recorded finding that the complaint is filed within the period of limitation and further that the ground raised with regard to the year of loan, ie., 2015 and issuance of cheque in the year 2023 is subject 3 / 3 matter of evidence. At the stage of taking cognizance on complaint what is taken into consideration is requirement as envisaged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The finding recorded by the revisional court does not appear to be suffering with any illegality or infirmity. 7. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) pwn JUDGE