Disposed¶21

Suraj Saraf v. Smt. Mitusha Prasad

Chhattisgarh HC17 Aug 2025ACQA/74/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suraj Saraf v. Mitusha Prasad; ACQA No. 74 of 2020; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Deepak Kumar Tiwari J; 18/08/2025; maintainability of acquittal appeal versus revision where complaint dismissed before cognizance under S.203 CrPC; belated complaint, cause of action under clause (c) of proviso to S.138 NI Act, 1881; S.398 CrPC; S.439 BNSS; appeal disposed of with liberty to file better constituted petition; NAFR; no respondent representation.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the appellant to file a better constituted petition in accordance with law; certified copy of the impugned judgment along with annexures directed to be supplied to counsel for the appellant after retaining xerox copy thereof. ¶21

Suraj Saraf Vs Smt. Mitusha Prasad — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:41399

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ACQA No. 74 of 2020

¶6

1 - Suraj Saraf S/o Shri Satyanarayan Saraf Aged About 50 Years Resident Of Ward No. 16 Shivnandanpur, Police Station Bishrampur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Smt. Mitusha Prasad W/o Shri Manav Prasad, Resident Of 3^rd And 4^th Floor, Shyam Chamber, Hirapur Road, Mohababazar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh,

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant : Shri Shahil Singh appears on behalf of Shri Mayank Kumar, Advocate.

¶12

For Respondent(s) : None.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

18/08/2025

¶16

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate as the complaint case has been filed belatedly since the cause of action arose under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881. He would further submit

¶17

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2025.08.18 15:57:06 +0530

¶18

that the complaint case has been dismissed prior to the registration under

¶19

¶20

Section 203 of the CrPC against which a Revision would lie under Section 398 of the CrPC/Section 439 of the BNSS and the present case has been wrongly filed under the heading of Acquittal Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks to withdraw this Appeal with liberty to file a better constituted petition in accordance with law.

¶21

Considering the submissions put-forth by counsel for the appellant, particularly considering the fact that the complaint case has been dismissed prior to the cognizance stage, this Court is of the opinion that no Acquittal Appeal would lie. Accordingly, the present Appeal is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the appellant to file a better constituted petition in accordance with law.

¶22

Certified copy of the impugned judgment along with annexures be supplied to counsel for the appellant after retaining xerox copy thereof.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶25

Barve

Suraj Saraf v. Smt. Mitusha Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Saraf v. Smt. Mitusha Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Kumar Dewangan Vs Rajendra Kumar Yadav

Abhishek Singh Vs Ravishankar Marawi

Brijmohan Agrawal Vs Avinash Kumar Sahu

Vijendra Dewangan Vs Deepchand Lodhi

Raj Advertiser Vs Vikash Chandra Basak

Ku. Pooja Yadav Vs Ravishankar Yadav