Dilip Kumar Singh Vs Smt. Usha Sanpariya

Pursuant to the order dated 20.03.2026, the Registrar (J) has submitted its report. Since, the officer concerned has already been transferred, without proceeding any further in the matter relating to enquiry, it is closed.

¶14

Aslo, heard on merits of the case.

¶15

Digitally signed by KISHORE KISHOREKUMARDESHMUKH KUMARDESHMUKHDate:2026.04.09 17:34:22 +0530

¶16

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, District – Surguja (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 1763/2003 by which the complaint filed by the complainant under

¶17

2

¶18

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the NI Act, 1881”) has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

¶19

The brief facts, as reflected from the record, are that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the IPC alleging that the accused had taken a loan of Rs. 3,49,000/- from him on 17.07.2002 for business purposes, and from the said amount the accused was running her medical business. He had given the loan amount on account of old acquaintance and friendly relations between them. At the time of availing the loan, the accused assured the complainant that the amount would be returned within one year or as and when demanded. After lapse of one year, on demand being made, the accused issued a cheque dated 27.10.2003 bearing No. 9784013 in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheque in his account bearing No. 159 maintained at the State Bank of Indore, Ambikapur Branch. However, on 18.11.2003, the cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement that the payment had been stopped by the drawer. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the accused, who assured him that the amount would be paid in cash within a week. On 27.11.2003, when the complainant again approached the accused, she avoided payment on one pretext or the other. Looking to the conduct of the accused, the complainant realized that she was not willing to pay the amount. Therefore, the complainant sent a statutory notice through his advocate on 04.12.2003, which was returned on 17.12.2003 with the endorsement that the accused had refused to receive the envelope. Subsequently, on 21.12.2003, the husband of the accused assured the complainant that the amount would be paid within 4–5

¶20

3

¶21

days and requested him not to initiate legal proceedings. However, despite lapse of the said period, the amount was not paid which compelled the complainant to file the present complaint case on 29.12.2003.

¶22

The complainant was examined on 29.12.2003, and his evidence was closed. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 30.12.2003, and notice was issued to the accused. On 31.01.2004, the notice was received unserved, consequently, fresh notice was issued. The case was again taken up on 20.02.2004 and 21.02.2004, on which dates notices were repeatedly issued to the accused, despite this, she failed to appear before the Court. Looking to the non-appearance of the accused, a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- was issued against her on 22.03.2004 to secure her presence. On 05.04.2004, as the accused again failed to appear, again bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was issued. Despite the same, the accused did not appear on 27.04.2004, and accordingly, a warrant of arrest was issued against her and, on 29.04.2004, the accused was produced before the Court. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned on various dates, namely 15.05.2004, 07.06.2004, 17.06.2004, 21.06.2004, and 22.06.2004. On 21.06.2004, the accused filed her reply/defence contending that she had issued a blank cheque to the complainant on 18.07.2002. It was further contended that she had taken a loan of Rs. 1,34,900/- from the complainant on the said date through three bank drafts amounting to Rs. 49,900/-, Rs. 40,000/-, and Rs. 45,000/-, along with Rs. 100/towards incidental charges, and that the said blank cheque was given as security in lieu of the aforesaid amount.

¶23

Relying upon the defence of the accused and the material available on

¶24

4

¶25

record, the learned trial Court recorded a finding that the complainant had received the cheque on 18.07.2002 and had given a loan of Rs. 1,35,000/-. It was further held that the complainant himself filled in the cheque by altering the date from 18.07.2002 to 27.10.2003 and the amount from Rs. 1,35,000/- to Rs. 3,49,500/-. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the learned trial Court treated 18.07.2002 as the date of issuance of the cheque and consequently held that the complaint was barred by limitation, and accordingly dismissed the complaint vide order dated 24.06.2004. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 24.06.2004, the appellant preferred Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 1741/2004, which has subsequently been converted into the present Criminal Appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that learned trial Court has erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation. He would further submit that he received information regarding dishonour of cheque on 18.11.2003, he issued statutory notice on 04.12.2003 and refusal of notice by the accused received to him on 17.12.2003 as such, filing of the complaint on 29.12.2003 is well within limitation. Therefore,, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is wholly erroneous and liable to be set aside.

¶27

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposing the contention made by the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint after appreciating the material available on record. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and therefore does not call for interference. The learned trial Court has rightly observed that the complainant himself filled the cheque by changing the date from 18.07.2002 to

¶28

5

¶29

27.10.2003 and the amount from Rs. 1,35,000/- to Rs. 3,49,500/-. He would further submit that the alleged cheque pertains to the year 2002, whereas the same was presented after delay of more than one year on 27.10.2003, therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation and would pray for dismissal of the present appeal.

¶30

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

¶31

From perusal of record, it is quite vivid that the learned trial Court has treated the date of issuance of cheque as 18.07.2002 and consequently held the complaint to be barred by limitation. It is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the cause of action under Section 138 of the NI Act arises from the date of dishonour of cheque and compliance of statutory requirements thereafter. The Negotiable Instruments Act has been amended on 06.02.2003 and the time for notice has been enhanced from 15 days to 30 days. Since, in the present case the information regarding dishonour of cheque due to stop payment was received on 18.11.2003 and notice was issued on under N.I. Act to the accused on 04.12.2003 and the complaint has been filed on 29.12.2003, as such, the complaint case is maintainable and with limitation.

¶32

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.06.2004 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court with a direction to restore the complaint case to its original number and to proceed with the case afresh in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence and decide the matter on merits, uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove, preferably within an outer limit of 9

¶33

6

¶34

months from the date of first appearance of the accused, since the matter pertains to year 2004.

¶35

The parties are directed to appear before the concerned court on 08.05.2026 for further proceeding. The Registry is directed to transmit the record to the trial Court immediately.

¶36

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

¶37

Sd/(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge

¶38

Deshmukh

Dilip Kumar Singh v. Smt. Usha Sanpariya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Singh v. Smt. Usha Sanpariya

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

Gulab Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

De Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satish Sethi Vs Smt. Mahendra Kaur

Dinesh Deshlahra Vs a. Ramarao

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Companay Limited Vs Rajesh Kumar Gupta

Shiv Shankar Sonkar Vs Shobhna Valde