Bemetara, Chhattisgarh v. Premchand Sahu S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:3711 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2642 of 2018 Naveen Soni S/o Shri Chhannu Soni Aged About 36 Years Prop. R/o Village- Sambalpur, Police Station Nandghat, Civil and Revenue District Bemetara Chhattisgarh., District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus
Legal Reasoning
stage of registration of the complaint the Court has to see the prima facie material whether the offence is made out or not or the ingredients of the offence is attracted or not and in the present case the cheque was issued by the respondent and the said cheque was dishonored from the Bank and after the demand notice payment has not been made which is sufÏcient to registered the complaint under section 138 of the NI Act. The learned trial Court has committed an error of law in holding that the mere issuance of demand notice and service of notice is not sufÏcient to hold that the accused has committed mistake in not making the payment of the said cheque amount. The learned trial Court has failed to consider the material evidence available on record though it is well settled principle of law that if the cheque is signed knowing the fact that he did not have amount in his account itself attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The learned trial Court instead of passing the speaking order and consider the case on merits dismissed the complaint by passing the one para order. Hence, he prays that the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and supports the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court. Thus, there is no illegality and infirmity while passing the impugned order, therefore, the instant petition is devoid of merits and is 4 liable to be dismissed. 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. From perusal of the documents available on record, order/judgment passed by the trial Court and after examining the complaint petition and documents presented by the complainant, it transpires that the dishounour memo does not mention the date of dishonor of the cheque, and it is also not clear whether the complainant sent a demand notice to the accused/respondent within the stipulated time after the dishonor of both cheques. Therefore, prima facie, there is no sufficient basis to register a case against the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and to take cognizance under the said section. 7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, and from the perusal of the orders of the trial Court, and further considering all the materials available on record, after applying mind, the learned JMFC Court after proper appreciation of the evidence available on record has rightly passed the impugned order dated 13.11.2018 and hence, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error which may call interference by this Court. Accordingly, the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of merits, liable to be and is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action, if any. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice 8. 9. Preeti
Arguments
Premchand Sahu S/o Shri Kartik Sahu Aged About 35 Years (Proprietor Kranti Premchand Traders), R/o Tahsil Chowk Lormi, Thana and Tahsil- Lormi, Civil And Revenue District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : None. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 482 of CrPC for being aggrieved by the order dated 13.11.2018 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, District – Mungeli, dismissing the complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act at the registration stage. 2. The prosecution story, in short, is that the complainant/petitioner is the proprietor of Soni Krishi Sewa Kendra running his business at village PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2025.01.23 20:05:44 +0530 2 Sambalpur for selling the insect / seeds and the respondent is proprietor of Kranti Traders and there is business transaction between them and they known to each other. The accused / respondent has purchase the medicine from the petitioner shop amounting Rs. 3,20,000/- on credit and requested for payment within 2-4 days and due to the business transaction petitioner has given the said medicine on his credit and for repayment of the said amount accused has given the cheque No. 226837 and 226866 dated 22.06.2018 and 28.07.2018 to the petitioner. The said cheque was deposited for encashment in the UCO Bank Branch Mungeli, the cheque were returned unpaid with the endorsement of insufÏcient fund therefore, the petitioner sent the demand notice through his counsel on 01/10/2018 and the same has been returned un served on 06.10.2018 with the endorsement" LENE SE INKAR" and also not made the payment within 15 days so the complainant/ petitioner has filed the present complaint case for prosecuting the respondent under section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner has filed the complaint along with the documents which are the notice sent for demand and the Bank memo./ information for dishonor of cheque due to insufÏcient fund. The notice has been sent for service to the accused but he himself refused to accept the notice but the learned trial Court has not considered the said aspects of the matter and also not consider the material evidence submitted with the complaint dismissed the complaint by passing the impugned order mention the reason that the date of dishonor of cheque as well as sending the notice is not disclose from the complaint application and passed the impugned order. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the demand notice has been 3 sent through registered post but the respondent did not accept the same and the said notice was returned to the sender by the postal department. The date of issuance of cheque as well as its dishonor and other details are clearly mentioned in the petition/complaint case but the learned trial Court has not read over the complaint as well as the afÏdavit of the complainant and dismissed the case on some technical grounds. At the