Allowed

Sukesh Dewangan v. Praveen Dewangan

Chhattisgarh HC9 Mar 2025ACQA/54/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal for want of prosecution of a Section 138 NI Act cheque dishonour complaint. The High Court found the complainant's non-appearance was bonafide due to a wrongly noted date and restored the complaint, quashing the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.10.2024 quashed; complaint restored to original number; trial court to decide on merits.

Sukesh Dewangan Vs Praveen Dewangan — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:11914

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 54 of 2025

¶5

1 - Sukesh Dewangan S/o Late Pawan Dewangan Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Achhota Post Bhoyna, Tahsil - Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.).

¶6

... Petitioner(s)

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Praveen Dewangan S/o Late Patiram Dewangan Aged About 27 Years R/o Rajiv Nagar, Achhota, Tahsil Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.).

¶9

... Respondent

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board

¶11

10.03.2025

¶12

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhamtari (C.G.) in Criminal Case No. 942/2024 by which the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act, 1881”) has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶13

The brief facts as reflected from records are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 alleging that he has given Rs. 5,50,000/- to the accused for his business. When he demanded the same to the accused, he had given a cheque bearing No. 191012 dated 04.01.2024 drawn in Union Bank of India, BranchDhamtari which was dishonoured. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice to the accused on 15.02.2024 but he did not return the amount to the complaint, which has compelled him to file complaint on 18.03.2024 under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881.

¶14

ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN

¶15

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.11 10:44:29 +0530

¶16

¶17

Learned trial Court after taking cognizance of the matter, issued notice to the accused and fixed the matter on 23.07.2024 for his appearance. On that date, the accused was not present despite repeated calls, therefore, the matter was fixed for 24.08.2024 for presence of the accused, on that date, the accused appeared before the trial Court along with his counsel and the matter was fixed for 19.9.09.2024 for summery of charge. On 19.09.2024, the matter was fixed on 16.10.2024 for recording evidence of complainant witnesses. On 16.10.2024, the complainant could not appear before the trial Court, therefore, the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881 was dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶18

Being aggrieved with the order dated 16.10.2024, the appellant preferred the petition bearing CRMP No. 3473/2024 which has been converted into regular acquittal appeal vide this Court’s order dated 20.01.2025.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the complainant’s counsel had wrongly noted the date of hearing before the trial Court as 21.10.2024 in place of 16.10.2024, therefore, he could not appear before the trial Court and the trial Court while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate that on earlier occasions, the complainant’s counsel was regularly appeared before the trial Court and non-appearance of the complainant before the trial Court on 16.10.2024 is bonafide, therefore, the order dated 16.10.2024 is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law which is liable to be quashed.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on 16.10.2024, neither the complainant nor his counsel appeared

¶21

¶22

before the trial Court despite repeated calls, therefore, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.10.2024 dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant, which is just and proper which does not warrant any interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal.

¶23

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction.

¶24

From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that non-appearance of the complainant on 16.01.2024 is bonafide as wrong date of hearing was noted by the counsel in the diary and looking to the facts of the case that the complaint was dismissed not on merit on 16.10.2024 but for want of prosecution, as such the complainant needed opportunity to participate in the proceedings.

¶25

Accordingly, the complaint case is restored to its original number and the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 is quashed. The trial Court is directed to decide the same on merits in accordance with law.

¶26

Since the parties have already appeared before this Court, as such no notice is required to be issued by the trial Court and the parties are directed to appear before the concerned court on 08.05.2025 for further proceeding. The Registry is directed to transmit the record to the trial Court immediately.

¶27

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant appeal is allowed.

¶28

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶29

Arun

Sukesh Dewangan v. Praveen Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukesh Dewangan v. Praveen Dewangan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Padman Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.

Kumari Bai Nirmalkar Vs Geeta Bai and Anr.

Vikram Soni Vs Smt. Meerabai

Dainik Bhaskar Vs Neeraj Jain

Nageshwar Prasad Kaushik Vs Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Mandi Board

B. L. Gangwani Vs C. Yajulu Rao