1 - Trilochan Singh Chawla S/o Surjeet Singh Chawla Aged About 76 Years R/o v. 1 - M/s Tuteja Medical Agency Address- Shop No. 7, New Medical Complex, Rajbandha
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:13232 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 3 of 2025 1 - Trilochan Singh Chawla S/o Surjeet Singh Chawla Aged About 76 Years R/o Surjeet Niwas Ravi Nagar, Raja Talab, Raipur, P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned Without 'age' In Annexure A/1 Impugned Judgment) --- Appellant versus 1 - M/s Tuteja Medical Agency Address- Shop No. 7, New Medical Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Navjeet Singh Tuteja S/o Amrik Singh Tuteja, Proprietor Of M/s Tuteja Medical Agency, R/o- Tuteja House, Near United Blood Bank, Govind Nagar, Rajatalab, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Details Of Respondent No.S 1 And 2 As Mentioned In Annexure A/1- Impugned Judgement) --- Respondent(s) ACQA No. 29 of 2025 1 - Trilochan Singh Chawla S/o Surjeet Singh Chawla Aged About 76 Years R/o Surjeet Niwas, Ravi Nagar, Raja Talab, Raipur, P.S. - Civil Lines, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Wrongly Mentioned Without Age In Annexure A/1 Impugned Judgement). (Complainant) ---Appellant(s) KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Digitally signed by KISHORE KUMAR DESHMUKH Date: 2025.03.25 10:52:01 +0530 2 Versus 1 - M/s Tuteja Medical Agency, Address - Shop No. 7, New Medical Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. (Details As Mention In Annexure A/1- Impugned Judgment) (Accused / Non Applicants) 2 - Navjeet Singh Tuteja S/o Amrik Singh Tuteja Proprietor Of M/s Tuteja Medical Agency, R/o - Tuteja House, Near United Blood Bank, Govind Nagar, Rajatalab, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. (Details As Mention In Annexure A/1- Impugned Judgment) (Accused / Non Applicants) --- Respondent(s) ACQA No. 38 of 2025 1 - Trilochan Singh Chawla S/o Surjeet Singh Chawla Aged About 76 Years R/o Surjeet Niwas, Ravi Nagar, Raja Talab, Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned Without Age In Annexure A/1 Impugned Judgment) (Complainant) ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - M/s Tuteja Medical Agency Address- Shop No. 7, New Medical Complex, Rajbadha Maidan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur, C.G. (Accused / Non- Applicant) 2 - Navjeet Singh Tuteja S/o Amrik Singh Tuteja Proprietor Of M/s Tutega Medical Agency, R/o- Tuteja House, Near United Blood Bank, Govind Nagar, Rajatalab, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Details Of Respondent No. S 1 And 2 As Mentioned In Annexure A/1 Impugned Judgment) (Accused/non- Applicant) --- Respondent(s) 3 ACQA No. 1171 of 2024 1 - Trilochan Singh Chawla S/o Surjeet Singh Chawla Aged About 76 Years R/o Ravi Nagar, Raja Talab, Raipur, P.S. Civil Lines, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Wrongly Mentioned Without Age In Annexure A/1 Impugned Judgment) ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - M/s Tuteja Medical Agency Address - Shop No. 7, New Medical Complex, Rajbandha Maidan, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Navjeet Singh Tuteja S/o Amrik Singh Tuteja Proprietor Of M/s Tuteja Medical Agency, R/o Tuteja House, Near United Blood Bank, Govind Nagar, Rajatalab, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Details Of Respondent No. 1 And 2 As Mentioned In Annexure A/1- Impugned Judgment) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondents : Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 20.03.2025 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in the bunch of
Decision
these acquittal appeals, they are being heard and disposed off by this common order. 2. These appeals have been preferred by the appellant assailing the orders dated 14.05.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Complaint Case No. 1428/2017, 1427/2017, 1431/2017 and 1429/2017 by which the complaints filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act, 1881”) have been dismissed for want of prosecution. 4 3. The brief facts as reflected from records are that the complainant is a 76 year old person filed complaint on 22.05.2017 under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 alleging that he has provided loan to the respondents and the respondents to clear the said debt/liabiity issued following cheques detailed in tabular form :- Sr. No. Bank Cheque No. Date Amount 1. 2. 3. 4. Axis Bank 364382 26.12.2016 Rs. 5,00,000/- Axis Bank 165691 27.12.2016 Rs. 1,00,000/- Axis Bank 364383 26.12.2016 Rs. 5,00,000/- Axis Bank 364352 26.12.2016 Rs. 5,00,000/- 4. Subsequently, he submitted the cheques in his bank account maintained at Oriental Bank of Commerce, however, the said cheques returned back with endorsement that the account has been closed. The complainant sent a legal notice to the accused on 04.04.2017 but neither the respondents paid the amount nor replied the notice. This necessitated him to file complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 on 22.05.2017. 5. Record of the case would show that learned trial Court framed charges on 05.09.2018 and the matter was pending for trial. However, on 25.01.2024, 05.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.03.2024, 30.03.2024 and 16.04.2024 the appellant failed to appear before the learned trial Court and the matter was fixed for hearing on 14.05.2024. On the said date the matter was called thrice at 1:00 pm, 03:00 pm and 05:00 pm and neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared before the trial Court, therefore, the learned trial Court dismissed the complaints for want of prosecution. Challenging the impugned orders dated 14.05.2024, the 5 appellant has filed present acquittal appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complainant was prosecuting his cases sincerely but the respondents were taking objections which have caused delay in disposal of the matter. However, on the dates 25.01.2024, 05.02.2024, 21.02.2024, 22.03.2024, 30.03.2024, 16.04.2024 and 14.05.2024 due to medical difficulty he could not appear before the Court as such, the non-appearance of the appellant is bonafide, therefore, the Court should have taken lenient view however, taking hyper-technical view learned trial Court dismissed the complaints. Therefore, he would pray for allowing the appeal and restoration of the complaints. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the contention made by the appellant would submit that neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared before the trial Court despite repeated calls, therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaints filed by the complainant, which is just and proper 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 respondent and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 9. From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the complaints were filed on 22.05.2017 and since then the appellant was prosecuting the case sincerely however considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has some medical issues which has caused absenteeism and this factual matrix has not been disputed by the respondents by placing any material on record. Taking 6 into consideration that the matter was continuing since 2017 and has not reached to its logical end even after lapse of more than 7 years and all of a sudden on a hyper-technical ground the complaints have been dismissed not on merit but for want of prosecution whereas efforts should be made by the trial Court to conclude the trial on merits which may show confidence on the litigants with regard to judicial system, I am of the view of that the learned trial Court has committed illegality and irregularity in dismissing the complaints. 10. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 14.05.2024 are quashed and the complaint cases are restored to their original numbers. The trial Court is directed to decide the same on merits of the case in accordance with law. 11. Since the parties are represented before this Court, they are directed to appear before the concerned court on 10.06.2025 for further proceeding. Since, the appellant has some medical difficulty and has submitted power of attorney in favour of his son, he has liberty to appear before the trial Court through his power of attorney holder unless otherwise not required for adjudication of the case. The Registry is directed to transmit the record to the trial Court immediately. 12. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant appeals are allowed. Deshmukh Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge