Dismissed¶28

Shadanand Patel v. Kamlesh Kumar Patel

Chhattisgarh HC2 Mar 2026CRR/537/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRR No. 537 of 2023; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal; revision under Section 397 CrPC; conviction under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act; cheque of Rs.50,000/- (year 2006); Rs.62,500/- already paid to complainant; sentence till rising of the Court; JMFC Dabhra Complaint Case No. 2199/2007; CRA No. 34/2018 before first Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti; no interference; revision dismissed at admission stage; decision dated 03.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; revision dismissed at the admission stage itself. ¶28

Shadanand Patel Vs Kamlesh Kumar Patel — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:10940

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 537 of 2023

¶5

1 - Shadanand Patel S/o Late Resham Lal Patel, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Bhedikona Tahsil Dabhra, District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

... Applicant

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Kamlesh Kumar Patel S/o Late Heera Lal Patel, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Village Bhedikona Tahsil Dabhra, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

2 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Late Heera Lal Patel, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Bhedikona Tahsil Dabhra, District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

3 - Chameli Bai D/o Late Heera Lal Patel Aged About 39 Years W/o Dr. Dinesh Patel R/o Village Bhedikona, Tahsil Dabhra District- Janjgir- Chama Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o C/o Dr. Dinesh Patel, Veternary Hospital, Bhatagaon Raipur Tahsiland, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

4 - Smt. Hulasmati W/o Late Heera Lal Patel, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Bhedikona, Tahsil Dabhra, District : JanjgirChampa, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

For Applicant	: Mr. Sahil Sahu, Adv. On behalf of Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate.
For Non-applicants	: Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

Digitally HEERALAL signed byHEERALAL SAHUDate: SAHU 2026.03.03 19:30:18 +0530

¶17

¶18

03.03.2026

¶19

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶20

2. The present revision under Section 397 of CrPC has been preferred by the applicant against the impugned judgment dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned first Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2018, affirming the order dated 31.03.2018, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dabhra, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Complaint Case No. 2199/2007, whereby the respondents/accused have been convicted and sentenced till rising of the Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶21

3. The complainant filed a complaint case under Section 138 of NI Act before the trial Court for a cheque bounce of Rs.50,000/-, wherein after hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, the learned trial Court i.e., JMFC, Dabhra, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), vide order dated 31.03.2018 convicted the respondents/accused for the offence 138 of the NI Act and sentenced till rising of the Court considering the fact that the respondents/ accused had already paid an amount of Rs.62,500/- to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant filed an appeal i.e., CRA No. 34/2018 before the learned Appellate Court whereby the 01^st Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, DistrictJanjgir Champa vide order dated 13.03.2023 dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by learned JMFC. Hence the present revision.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the orders

¶23

¶24

passed by the learned trial Court and the appellate Court is bad in law. He further submits that a compensation amount has to be awarded in favour of the complainant/applicant in the interest of justice. Hence, the present revision petition is liable to be allowed.

¶25

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the accused/respondents had already paid an amount of Rs.62,500/- to the complainant before passing of the judgment by the trial Court, which has been found sufficient by the learned trial Court and the appellate Court, therefore, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶26

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶27

7. In the case in hand, looking to the records, it is evident that the alleged cheque was of the year 2006 and the trial was going for about 10 years and thereafter in 2018, learned trial Court found that the accused/respondents had already paid an amount of Rs.62,500/- to the complainant. In this situation, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, as affirmed by the learned appellate Court, warranting interference by this Court.

¶28

8. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)

¶31

Judge

¶32

H.L. Sahu

Shadanand Patel v. Kamlesh Kumar Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shadanand Patel v. Kamlesh Kumar Patel

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

Manoj @ Yugal Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Joseph Kashyap @ Lalu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Premchand Charandas Rathore Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abc Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Virendra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pks Vs State of Chhattisgarh