1 2026:CGHC:13648 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 607 of 2026 Deenanath Yadav S/o Shri R. N. Yadav Aged About 47 Years R/o Qtr. No. G-11, Forest Colony, Koni, Bilaspur, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 – Officer-In-Charge, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Neeraj Meshram Aged About 49 Years S/o Unknown (Mentioned As Namalum In Records Of The Trial Court), Qtr. N.ASD/3, Asma Residency, Village Sakri, Earlier P.S. Chakarbhatha, Present P.S. Sakri, District Bilaspur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order On Board 23/03/2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. BHOLA NATH KHATAI Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2026.03.24 10:40:29 +0530 2 2. The present petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed against the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by learned JMFC, Bilaspur (CG) in Case (NI Act) No.720/2017 whereby accused Neeraj Meshram was declared “absconding” on his absence and a permanent arrest warrant was issued against him at the request of complainant Dinanath Yadav. 3. Learned State Counsel was directed to submit a status report regarding the execution of the Permanent Arrest Warrant. In response, a report of the Station House Officer, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (where the accused resides) has been presented. The report states that no such Permanent Arrest Warrant against Neeraj Meshram issued by the Court is recorded or has been received in the warrant register maintained at Police Station Sakri. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused, Neeraj Meshram, is a resident of Village Sakri. At the time of the initial proceedings, Sakri functioned only as a Police Outpost (Chowki), which has since been upgraded to a full-fledged Police Station (Thana). This administrative transition may be the reason why the Permanent Arrest Warrant is not reflected in the current Police Station's register. 5. The disputed cheque pertains to the year 2017. The procedural history of the case reveals that the Trial Court initially issued a summons, followed by a bailable warrant, and subsequently a non-bailable warrant. Finally, at the complainant’s request, a Permanent Arrest Warrant was issued. 6. It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court did not record the statement of any authorised official or process server regarding the "absconding" status of the accused. In such circumstance, the complaint case remains in a dead state. 7. Therefore, to revive the proceedings, in the interest of justice, the order of the trial Court dated 13.12.2022 is hereby set aside. The 3 Trial Court is directed to pass appropriate fresh order against the accused on that date and proceed with the case in accordance with the law. 8. The petitioner/complainant is directed to appear before the trial Court on 22nd April, 2026. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the present CRMP stands disposed of. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE Khatai