Allowed

2 Dudes Mens Wear v. Smt. Sunita Goyal

Chhattisgarh HC11 Mar 2025ACQA/8/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed an acquittal appeal against an order dismissing a complaint under Section 138 NI Act for want of prosecution. The court quashed the order due to the complainant's single absence despite prior examination, restoring the case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 09.12.2021 was set aside, and the complaint case was restored to its original number.

2 Dudes Mens Wear Vs Smt. Sunita Goyal — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:12230

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 8 of 2022

¶6

Order Reserved on : 05.12.2024 Order Delivered on : 12.03.2025

¶7

2 Dudes Mens Wear Mohammad Abid Memon (Wrongly Mentioned As Aabid Memon Only As Complainant In The Impugned Order), S/o Shri Amin Memon, Aged About 28 Years, R/o D.D. Market Ke Pass, Power (Wrongly Mentioned As Pawar) House Road, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba (Chhattisgarh), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

Smt. Sunita Goyal W/o Shri Gopal Goyal, Aged About 42 Years R/o House No. B-73, Powercity Colony, Jamanipali, Police Station Darri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) Present Address Agroha Marg (Kewal Kirana), Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas (CAV Judgment)

¶14

The appellant has filed the present acquittal appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 09.12.2021 (Annexure A/1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 1182/2019 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate First

¶15

Digitally signed by MANISH MANISH YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.03.12 12:16:21 +0530

¶16

¶17

Class has dismissed the complaint for want of prosecution and acquitted the accused from the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has filed a complaint case before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) stating that the respondent/accused has purchased T-shirt, Shirt and Jeans for her own business purpose on 15.11.2018 and towards her liability she has given a cheque No. 591994 amounting to Rs. 2,18,000/- on 17.11.2018 payable at the State Bank of India, Branch - Kusmunda, District - Korba (C.G.). The said cheque was presented before the Bank for clearance. The said cheque was returned with endorsement that “bounced due to insufficient fund” on 19.11.2018. The appellant/complainant demanded the money by sending a registered legal notice dated 04.11.2018 to the respondent, which was received by him on 11.12.2018, but the respondent/accused neither paid the amount nor replied to the notice. Therefore, a complaint case was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, District - Korba (C.G.) registered as Criminal Case No. 1187/2019. The said complaint was dismissed on 09.12.2021. Being aggrieved with this order appellant has preferred present acquittal appeal.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Criminal Case No. 1187/2019 has been dismissed for want of prosecution vide order was passed on 09.12.2021 on the count that neither the appellant was present nor his counsel was present. It has been further contended that the appellant was ill and the information regarding his illness was given to the counsel, but the counsel has

¶20

¶21

not informed this fact to the Court, as such he would submit that his absence was bonafide and would pray for quashing of the impugned order and restoration of the complaint case. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of this Court in case of Chirag Combines vs. Mahesh Chhabra & other reported in 2021 SCC Online Chh 2992 .

¶22

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the complainant was not vigilant to attend the hearing therefore, dismissal of the complaint is legal and justified and does not warrant interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the complaint.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶24

From the record annexed by the petitioner, it is quite vivd that the complainant was already examined and cross-examined on 08.10.2021, as such trial was at the completion stage and the respondent has not placed any documents on record except order dated 09.12.2021, the complainant was not present to contest the case sincerely. Even the order sheets of the trial Court to this effect is silent. This clearly demonstrates that the complainant was taking keen interest to see that the case is reached to its logical end. Even the respondent has not placed any material on record that complainant was not ill on the said date by submitting any documents to rebut the same. Thus, it is quite vivid that the dismissal of complaint for single absent is harsh and deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 dismissing the complaint deserves to be set aside and accordingly,

¶25

¶26

it is set aside. The complaint case is restored to its original number.

¶27

A copy of the order be forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate First Class to decide the case in accordance with law. Since the parties have already entered appearance before this Court, no notice is required to be issued to them. Both parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 28^th April, 2025 .

¶28

With aforesaid observation and direction, present acquittal appeal is allowed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶31

Manish

2 Dudes Mens Wear v. Smt. Sunita Goyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

2 Dudes Mens Wear v. Smt. Sunita Goyal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sapna Bisen Vs State of Chhattisgarh

B.L Gangwani Vs C. Yajulu Rao

Firoj Khan Vs Bunty @ Rajesh Varndani

(Died) Vijay Pal Sharma, through Legal Heirs. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Devesh Jaiswal Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sheetal Kumar Jain Vs Manoj Agrawal