• Sunil Kumar Motlani S/o Late Shri Govindram Motlani Aged About 48 Years R/o v. • Neha Shah W/o Rajkumar Shah Aged About 41 Years R/o H.No. J-67/68, In
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8491 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 1127 of 2024 • Sunil Kumar Motlani S/o Late Shri Govindram Motlani Aged About 48 Years R/o Santrabadi, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) --- Appellant. versus • Neha Shah W/o Rajkumar Shah Aged About 41 Years R/o H.No. J-67/68, In Front Of Chintaharan Hanuman Temple, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Wrongly Mentioned As District Durg, Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order) (Accused) --- Respondent ACQA No. 1137 of 2024 •
Legal Reasoning
Sunil Kumar Motlani S/o Late Shri Govindram Motlani Aged About 48 Years R/o Santrabadi, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus • Neha Shah W/o Rajkumar Shah Aged About 41 Years R/o H.No. J - 67 /68, In Front Of Chintaharan Hanuman Temple, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned As District Durg Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order) --- Respondent(s) 2 ACQA No. 1124 of 2024 • Sunil Kumar Motlani S/o Late Shri Govindram Motlani Aged About 48 Years R/o Santrabadi, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant. Versus • Neha Shah W/o Rajkumar Shah Aged About 41 Years R/o H.No. J-67/68, In Front Of Chintaharan Hanuman Temple, Choubey Colony, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned As District Durg Chhattisgarh In The Impugned Order) --- Respondent( For appellant For Respondent : : Mr. Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate. Mr. P. Chetan Kumar , Advocate. (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas) Order on Board 18/02/2025 1. Since the bunch of these cases arise out of judgment and order dated 12-9-202 between the same party but for different causes which have been dismissed by the learned trial Court, as such they are heard
Decision
analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellant/complainant has filed these acquittal appeals under Section 419 (4) of Bharatiuya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhit 2023, assailing theorder dated 12-9-2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) in Regular Criminal Case No 211 of 2020, 210 of 2020 and 212 of 2020 by which the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. In Acquittal Appeal No 1127 of 2024 the case of complainant is that 3 the complainant and respondent are known to each other and usually use to go visit each others house. The respondent for his business requirements has requested the complainant for loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the month of September, 2018. The same was given to the respondent by the appellant on 04.09.2018 through cheque bearing No. 037219 which was used by the respondent. On 4.9.2018 an agreement was entered into between the parties that a sum of Rs.3000/- per day will be returned by the respondent to the appellant herein. After passing of 4-5 months of period when the respondent did not return the amount the appellant demanded the same from him. The respondent in lieu of above loan issued a cheque bearing No. 846011 dated 23.07.2019 of Vijaya Bank, branch- Sundar Nagar, Raipur for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which got dishonored on 22.10.2019 on account of insufficient funds in the account after which the complainant preferred a case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. In Acquittal Appeal No,.1124 of 2024- the case of the complainant is that the complainant and respondent are known to each other and usually used to go visit each others house. The respondent for its business requirements has requested for loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the month of September, 2018. The same was given to the respondent by the appellant on 04.09.2018 through cheque bearing no. 037219 which was used by the respondent. On 4.9.2018 an agreement was entered into between the parties that a sum of Rs.3000/- per day will be returned by the respondent to the appellant herein. After passing of 4-5 months of period when the respondent did not returned the amount the appellant demanded the same from him. The respondent in lieu of 4 above loan issued a cheque bearing No. 846010 dated 20.07.2019 of Vijaya Bank, branch- Sundar Nagar, Raipur for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which got dishonored on 17.10.2019 on account of insufficient funds in the account and thereafter the complainant preferred a case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 5. In Acquittal Appeal No.1137 of 2024 – case of the complainant is that the complainant and respondent are known to each other and usually they used to go visit each others house. The respondent in order for its business requirements has requested for loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- in the month of September, 2018. The same was given to the respondent by the appellant on 04.09.2018 through cheque bearing no. 037219 which was used by the respondent. On 4.9.2018 an agreement was entered into between the parties that a sum of Rs.3000/- per day will be returned by the respondent to the appellant herein. After passing of 4-5 months of period when the respondent did not returned the amount the appellant demanded the same from him. The respondent in lieu of above loan issued a cheque bearing No. 846009 dated 15.07.2019 of Vijaya Bank, branch- Sundar Nagar, Raipur for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which got dishonored on 15.10.2019 on account of insufficient funds in the account of the respondent; Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and after filing of the complaint the accused was summoned and charges were framed against the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act and the mater was fixed for evidence of the complainant on 2-9-2024. . On that date the complainant did not appear therefore, the matter was adjourned to 12-9-2024. On 12-9-2024 neither the complainant nor 5 his counsel appeared despite repeated calls, therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant has been dismissed for want of prosecution. This order is being assailed by the complainant by filing these appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complaint was pending since 2019 and the same was dismissed on 12-9-2024 for want of prosecution whereas counsel for the complainant was sincerely prosecuting the case. He would further submit that the learned trial court has adopted hyper technical view while dismissing the complaint whereas the learned trial Court should have given an opportunity to the complainant. He would further submit that the order passed by the learned trial Court is perverse, illegal and contrary to the material on record, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed and would pray for restoration of the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the complainant/appellant would submit that the impugned order is legal and justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 9. From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the complainant was sincerely prosecuting the case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and only last two occasions, he remained absent, there must be some bonafide reason for his absence. Learned trial Court has taken hyper technical view while dismissing the complaint as the 6 complaint is pending for the last six years. Thus, the order dated 12-9- 2024 dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant for want of prosecution, is perverse and illegal, warranting interference by this court, as such, the impugned order dated 12-9-2024 in Criminal Case No. 211 of 2020, 210 of 2020 and 212 of 2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur is quashed. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeals are allowed. The complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is restored to its original number. The complainant/appellant as well as respondent are directed to appear before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg on 25th April, 2025 and thereafter the learned Court will proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 11. A copy of this order be sent to the learned learned Judicial Magistrate RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.03.24 16:09:34 +0530 Raju First Class, Durg for compliance. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE