Guru Dayal Gupta (wrongly mentioned Gududyal Gupta in Impugned Order)) & Ors. v. Anand Kumar Agarawal

: Mr. Prateek Singh Thakur, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 10/01/2025

Heard finally.

This petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 528 of the BNSS against the order dated 21.05.2024, in criminal case bearing number Negotiable Instruments Act/617/2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 2

Facts of this case in brief on 19.02.2021, Respondent/Complainant- Anand Agrawal preferred a complaint case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In the said complaint, the respondent stated that his business is situated in District Mungeli, where he processes pulses and sells it. The complainant stated that the applicant is also a businessman and upon demand of pulses he supplied it to him. On 24.04.2020, the complainant supplied 250 quintals of pulses to the applicants amounting to Rs.13,92,200/- of which Rs.4,00,000/- is alleged to be paid by applicant No.1 through RTGS. Thereafter, the applicant drew a cheque to the respondent on 17/12/2020 amounting to Rs.9,92,750/-, which was putforth before Bank by respondent/complainant on 24/12/2020, as per the respondent the cheque was dishonored. A legal was sent to applicant on 20.01.2021. Thereafter, the criminal complaint has been preferred. During the pendency of criminal case against applicant No.1, he has undergone a heart bypass surgery due which is unable to attend the Court proceedings before the trial Court. Applicant no.1 also preferred applications before the trial Court on 15.03.2024, which was not appreciated by the trial Court. The opportunity for cross examination to the complainant was not provided by the trial Court. The applicant has alleged his difficulties which he is facing before the trial Court, as he is pressurized to compromise with the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the learned Court below is contrary to law and is liable to be quashed/ 3 set-aside. He further contended that Court below has not considered the provisions of Sections 143, 145 & 146 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He further contended that, the accused has a fracture in his hand and he is a heart patient, he comes from West Bengal and his arguing counsel comes from Uttar Pradesh for appearing before the trial Court. The local counsel had informed the trial Court that accused may kindly be granted only one week’s time for appearing before trial Court for cross-examination of the complainant may be done, but the opportunity of cross-examination of the complainant was closed by the trial Court within one day. He further contended that, the undue advantage is provided to the complainant from the trial Court on multiple occasions, as the accused has preferred his medical documents for perusal even then the advantage is given to the complainant, as accused has been subjected to unfair treatment by the trial Court. In one of the similar set of case against the same respondent this Court was kind enough to pass an order in favour of petitioner granting opportunity to him for the cross- examination. Hence, it is prayed that this petition may kindly be allow and quash/set-aside the order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure A-1), in the interest of justice.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order impugned and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 4

Considering the facts of the case, pleading made in the petition and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No.1- Guru Dayal Gupta had undergone a heart bypass surgery due to which, he was unable to attend the Court proceedings before the trial Court. In this regard, medical documents is annexed as Annexure P/3.

In considered opinion of this Court that it would be appropriate that one opportunity is given to the petitioner No.1 to appear before the concerned trial Court for cross-examination in accordance with law. Accordingly, impugned order dated 21.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. Petitioner No.1 (Guru Dayal Gupta) is directed to appear before the concerned trial Court on 28.02.2025 and on that day, trial Court shall record the statement of petitioner No.1. No further adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner, whatsoever reason.

With the above direction, the instant CrMP stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant